Bail granted despite criminal antecedents as allegations failed to prima facie establish ingredients of charged offences.

The applicant, Roshan Thakur, was arrested on 19.02.2026

The complainant alleged that the applicant and a co-accused entered his medical shop, used abusive language, and threatened to shoot him unless he vacated the premises or paid ₹50,000

The police registered a case under Sections 296, 119(1), 351(2), 3(5), and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing false implication and noting that CCTV footage showed the suspects were empty-handed

The State opposed the bail citing 10 criminal antecedents

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

2. Whether the gravity of the alleged offences and the applicant's criminal history outweigh the prima facie lack of incriminating evidence, such as the absence of a recovered weapon

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court and Court of Session to grant bail

The Court also considered the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 296 (Obscene acts and songs/Abuse), 119(1) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), 3(5) (Common intention), and 333 (Extortion)

The decision adhered to the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing the socio-economic status of the applicant and the likelihood of recidivism versus the strength of the prosecution's prima facie case

The Court observed that while the State raised concerns regarding the applicant’s 10 criminal antecedents, the material evidence for the current offence appeared weak.

Specifically, the Court noted that CCTV footage showed the applicant empty-handed and no firearms or weapons were recovered during the investigation

The Court found substance in the applicant's argument that mere oral threats without further action might not satisfy the requirements of the charged sections at this stage

Given that the final report had been submitted and the trial would likely be protracted, the Court determined there was no compelling reason for continued incarceration

The Court balanced the applicant's criminal history by imposing "stringent conditions" rather than denying liberty

The Court held that despite antecedents, the lack of prima facie evidence connecting the applicant to a violent act justified bail

The applicant was ordered to comply with six conditions, including appearing at every hearing and marking his presence at the concerned Police Station every Saturday until the conclusion of the trial

Any breach of these conditions allows the trial court to consider the cancellation of bail