Bail granted considering parity, custody, filed charge-sheet, and likely delay in trial.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered for offences under Sections 74, 75(2), 126(2), 131, 49 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that four men obstructed the victim and attempted to forcibly take her into a vehicle. The applicant was not named in the FIR; he was implicated during the investigation based on a co-accused’s memorandum statement and was identified by the victim.

He had been in custody since 25 July 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed. The principal accused had previously been granted bail by a coordinate Bench.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations and material against him

2. Whether the applicant’s custody, filing of the charge-sheet, likely duration of trial, and the principal accused’s release on bail supported granting bail

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the application for regular bail.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s implication and role as reflected in the material, parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely time required to conclude the trial. The order cited no additional statutory test or precedent beyond the coordinate Bench’s bail order in the principal accused’s case.

The Court weighed the seriousness of the allegations against the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and was implicated during investigation on the basis of a co-accused’s memorandum statement.

It also considered that the principal accused had been granted bail, the applicant had remained in custody since 25 July 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take time. On those circumstances, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court found bail appropriate.

It directed that the applicant be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the case; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and requiring appearance at every trial-court hearing until disposal of the case.