Bail granted where the charge-sheet is filed, the accused lacks antecedents, and trial may be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 98/2026 registered at Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur, for an offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, who was known to the complainant from university, represented that he could secure the complainant a government job in the Education Department, received ₹3,20,000 from him, and directed him to attend an interview at KITE College.

When no appointment letter was received, the applicant allegedly switched off his mobile phone and left the station with his family, leading to registration of the FIR.

The applicant was arrested and the police subsequently filed the charge-sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that he was innocent, had been falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, was a permanent resident, and was unlikely to abscond.

The State opposed the application, principally noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS.

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, period of custody, and likely delay in conclusion of trial justified grant of bail, subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS.

In determining bail, the Court considered the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

Bail was granted subject to conditions designed to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent unnecessary adjournments, and ensure that the liberty granted was not misused.

The Court found that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, that the charge-sheet had already been submitted before the competent court, and that he had remained in custody since 3 April 2026.

Since the conclusion of the trial was likely to take further time, continued detention was not considered justified at the pre-trial stage.

Although the State opposed bail, it did not identify circumstances sufficient to outweigh these considerations.

The Court therefore exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of release, while imposing conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, abstention from seeking adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at material stages of the trial, and compliance with proceedings in the event of misuse of bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments, to remain present on dates fixed by the trial court, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to face appropriate proceedings in case of absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.