Bail granted where the FIR appeared retaliatory, charge-sheet was filed, and further custody was unnecessary.

The applicant, Sachin Mandal, sought bail in connection with FIR No. 0094 of 2026, registered on 1 March 2026 at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, initially against an unknown person and later implicating the applicant for offences under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 193(3), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The applicant contended that the FIR was a counterblast to an earlier FIR, No. 0093 of 2026, lodged by his wife, Shweta, concerning an incident in which the complainant and his associates allegedly assaulted her and others.

He relied on the medical reports indicating injuries caused by hard and blunt objects and submitted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, that he had been in custody since 8 March 2026, and that his only criminal antecedent was a pending case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in which he was already on bail.

The complainant opposed bail, asserting that the applicant had himself called and assaulted them.

The State confirmed that the charge-sheet had been filed and stated that no further custodial interrogation was necessary.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in the case registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 193(3), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023, particularly when the charge-sheet had been filed and he had remained in custody since 8 March 2026?

Whether the later FIR against the applicant appeared to be a counterblast to the earlier FIR lodged by his wife, thereby supporting the grant of bail?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 193(3), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In deciding bail, it assessed the apparent circumstances of the cross-case, the existence of the earlier FIR, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the State’s submission that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court found that the FIR implicating the applicant was lodged after the FIR filed by his wife and appeared, at this stage, to be a counterblast to that earlier proceeding.

This circumstance, coupled with the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since 8 March 2026, and the absence of any requirement for further custodial interrogation, weighed in favour of release on bail.

Although the complainant opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had assaulted them, the Court considered the competing versions and the surrounding circumstances sufficient to conclude that the applicant deserved bail, while expressly leaving the merits of the case open.

As a condition of bail, he was directed to appear before the trial court on every date and not seek unnecessary adjournments.