### Bail Granted to Woman Accused of Rioting and Assault Absent Criminal Antecedents and Filed Charge-Sheet

The applicant filed her first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The prosecution alleged that following a communal disturbance involving one Aarif Khan, a mob from Village Dutkaiya surrounded the complainant’s house on February 1, 2026, committing assault with weapons (knives, rods, sticks) and setting fire to property and vehicles.

The applicant was arrested on April 1, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 31/2026 for offenses under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 326(g).

The state opposed bail, citing the organized nature of the crime involving 30 accused persons and 16 injured victims.

1. Whether the applicant, a woman with no criminal antecedents, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the stage of the trial and nature of allegations.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

The principle that pretrial detention should not be punitive when the investigation is complete (indicated by the filing of a charge-sheet) and the accused poses no flight risk or threat to the trial process.

Special consideration for women in bail matters, alongside the necessity of personal bonds and sureties to ensure presence under Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS/BNS.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—involving an organized mob attack and injuries to 16 persons—against the specific circumstances of the applicant.

It noted that the investigation against the applicant was substantially complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The Court placed significant weight on the facts that the applicant is a woman, has no prior criminal record, and has been in judicial custody since April 1, 2026.

Given that 22 out of 30 accused are in custody and the trial is expected to take a considerable amount of time, the Court reasoned that further incarceration was not warranted, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's cooperation with the judicial process and to prevent the abuse of liberty.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant attending all trial dates, not seeking unnecessary adjournments, and appearing specifically for framing charges and recording statements under Section 351 BNSS.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat such default as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Section 269 of the BNS or Section 84 of the BNSS.