Bail granted where Investigating Officer proposed discharge of accused in final report for lack of evidence.

The applicants filed their first bail application following their arrest on February 20, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 117/2026.

The prosecution alleged that on February 19, 2026, a group of 25–30 persons entered the complainant’s house, set fire to property, and caused damage to vehicles and infrastructure.

The defense contended the FIR was a "counterblast" to an earlier complaint (Crime No. 116/2026) regarding a communal dispute at a temple.

Notably, during the investigation, the SHO proposed the discharge of several applicants due to insufficient evidence and CCTV verification, rendering their complicity doubtful.

The final report has been submitted, and the applicants have remained in judicial custody.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the Investigation Officer's opinion regarding lack of evidence and the nature of the allegations.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.), which governs the special powers of the High Court regarding bail.

Sections 333, 326(g), 296(b), 191(2), 191(3), and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Bail is a rule while jail is an exception, particularly when the veracity of prosecution evidence is yet to be tested at trial.

The court observed that while the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offences and one criminal antecedent of Applicant No. 1, the Investigating Officer had significantly weakened the prosecution's case by proposing the discharge of the applicants for want of sufficient evidence after verifying CCTV footage and witness statements.

The court noted the "prima-facie merit" in the argument that the case stemmed from a communal dispute where the complainant party might have been the aggressor.

The court evaluated the socio-economic status of the applicants—ranging from students to street vendors—and concluded there was no substantial risk of them fleeing justice, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence.

As the investigation was complete and the trial was expected to take time, continued incarceration was deemed unnecessary.

The court allowed the application and ordered the release of all seven applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety.

The order is effective until the end of the trial unless revoked for breach of conditions.