Bail granted to cafe worker as alleged facilitation of offence requires determination through trial evidence.

The applicant, a 21-year-old worker at "Nice Cafe," filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on 17.02.2026, a co-accused (Junaid) committed rape on the complainant at the cafe while the applicant intentionally played loud music to mask the crime.

The FIR was lodged on 23.02.2026 after a delay of six days.

The applicant was arrested on 24.02.2026 and has been in judicial custody since.

The first bail application was withdrawn on 31.03.2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering his role as an alleged facilitator and his personal circumstances.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is necessary given the completion of the investigation and lack of criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The principles of "likelihood of recidivism," "fleeing from justice," and "tampering with evidence" as established benchmarks for bail jurisprudence.

Procedural relevance of Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the timely examination of witnesses during trial.

The court observed that the applicant is a young labourer with no prior criminal record.

It noted a prima facie merit in the applicant's defense regarding the delay in the FIR and the nature of his involvement, which the court stated must be determined through evidence at trial.

The court reasoned that since the investigation is complete and the final report has been submitted, there is no immediate necessity for custodial interrogation.

The court determined that the applicant's socio-economic status and deep roots in the community mitigated the risks of him absconding or influencing witnesses.

The court emphasized that jail incarceration would cause undue hardship to a young applicant where there is no compelling reason to continue his detention.

The court held that the applicant meets the criteria for bail as there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.

The relief was granted subject to conditions including regular attendance at hearings and a prohibition against contacting witnesses or committing further offences.