Facts
The prosecution alleged that, late on 4 April 2026, the prosecutrix was forcibly taken into a shop and sexually assaulted by the applicant and other accused persons.
Source reference: para. 2The applicant was arrested on 5 April 2026 and charged under Sections 70(1) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Source reference: paras. 1, 3Seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), he relied on the prosecutrix’s evidence at trial, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likely duration of the trial, his lack of criminal antecedents, and the grant of bail to three co-accused.
Source reference: para. 3The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s alleged direct involvement, but confirmed that he had no criminal antecedents and that the co-accused had been granted bail.
Source reference: paras. 4–5Issues
1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the bail granted to co-accused.
Source reference: paras. 3–7Law Applied
Section 483 BNSS provides the basis for the application for regular bail.
Source reference: paras. 1, 8In deciding the application, the Court considered the applicant’s period in custody, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the anticipated time for trial, the position of the co-accused, and the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents.
Source reference: paras. 3–7The alleged offences were under Sections 70(1) and 115(2) BNS.
Source reference: para. 1The Court imposed conditions requiring attendance and non-interference with the trial, including references to Section 269 BNS, Section 84 BNSS, and Section 209 BNS.
Source reference: para. 8Reasoning
The Court found that the applicant had been in custody since 5 April 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial might take considerable time to conclude.
Source reference: para. 7It also took account of the fact that three co-accused had been granted bail and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.
Source reference: paras. 4–5, 7On those considerations, and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that bail was warranted.
Source reference: para. 7Holding
The Court allowed the application and directed the applicant’s release on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to the stated conditions concerning adjournments, attendance, and personal appearance at specified stages of the trial.
A certified copy was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.
Source reference: para. 9Acts & Sections Cited
7 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20233
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20234
Original Court PDF
MUNNA GIRIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
