Bail granted where alleged receipt of misappropriated funds lacked documentary corroboration after charge-sheet filing.

The appellant challenged the order dated 30 July 2026 by which the Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Kondagaon, rejected his application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in Crime No. 67/2026 registered at Police Station Narayanpur.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 351(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The informant’s father, a police employee, died in a road accident on 23 August 2025. In the resulting motor accident claim proceedings, an award of approximately ₹1 crore was passed.

The prosecution alleged that a co-accused advocate, engaged by the deceased’s legal representative, obtained ₹19 lakhs from the terminal benefits and demanded a further ₹50 lakhs; it was further alleged that the present appellant received 50% of the ₹19 lakhs.

The appellant contended that there was no documentary evidence connecting him with receipt of the money, that the relevant receipt had been issued by the co-accused, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that he had remained in custody since 17 July 2026.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the specific allegation against the appellant and the gravity of the offences.

Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, read with the appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, despite the allegation that he received 50% of the amount allegedly misappropriated.

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the appellant’s period of custody, and the absence of documentary evidence directly showing receipt of the amount justified interference with the Special Court’s order rejecting bail.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the order refusing bail and considered the appellant’s claim for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The Court assessed bail on the basis of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available in the case diary, the stage of the proceedings, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the period of custody.

The prosecution invoked Sections 318(4), 308(2), 351(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act; however, the order does not set out any separate statutory bar to bail or rely upon a judicial precedent.

Bail was granted subject to conditions designed to secure the appellant’s presence, prevent adjournment-related delay, and address misuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court considered the prosecution’s allegation that the appellant received half of the ₹19 lakhs allegedly taken by the co-accused, but noted that no documentary evidence directly supported this allegation.

It also took into account that the claim proceedings had been instituted by the co-accused at the instance of the deceased employee’s legal representative, that the alleged amount had been withdrawn from terminal benefits and subsequently collected by the co-accused, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and that the appellant had been in custody since 17 July 2026.

Balancing the nature of the accusation against these factors, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted at the bail stage.

The appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

The bail conditions require the appellant not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present before the trial court on every date either personally or through counsel, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court further directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation, and expressed an expectation that the trial would be concluded expeditiously.