Bail warranted where suicide videos neither named the accused nor attributed assault, alongside custody and no antecedents.

The applicant was arrested on 26.06.2026 in connection with Crime No. 56/2026 registered at Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, following a road accident involving the deceased’s vehicle and a Mercedes car, the applicant abused and assaulted the deceased, demanded ₹1 crore as compensation, and threatened him and his family.

The deceased subsequently uploaded videos on Instagram and later died by suicide.

The applicant denied the allegations, relied on the videos which did not specifically name him or allege assault by him, and contended that the deceased had referred to driving under the influence of ganja and substance addiction.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the seriousness of the allegations and the pending investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

The Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the material collected during investigation, the applicant’s period of custody, criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial as relevant bail considerations.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court found that the material relied upon by the prosecution, particularly the videos allegedly uploaded by the deceased, did not specifically name the applicant and indicated that the deceased had denied being assaulted by him.

These circumstances weakened, at the bail stage, the direct attribution of the deceased’s suicide to the applicant.

The Court also took into account that the applicant had been in custody since 26.06.2026, had no criminal antecedents, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the State emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the pending investigation, the Court concluded that the overall circumstances justified release on bail.

The High Court directed that Sagar Hemla be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and examination under Section 351 of the BNSS, and compliance with the consequences prescribed for misuse of bail or non-appearance.