Bail was granted for simple-injury allegations after charge-sheet filing and prolonged custody.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 412/2026, registered for offences under Sections 121(1), 132, 221 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, during a police raid at Anil Khunte’s house on 30 July 2026, 40 bulk litres of illicit Mahua liquor were seized and the applicants obstructed and manhandled police personnel, causing injuries.

The applicants disputed the prosecution account; they had been in custody since 31 July 2026.

The charge-sheet had been filed, each applicant had one pending antecedent under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, and co-accused Neha Khunte had been granted anticipatory bail.

Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations, injuries, custody, antecedents, and progress of the case.

Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused Neha Khunte was a relevant consideration in deciding the applicants’ bail applications.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to consider and grant regular bail.

The Court assessed the bail applications in light of the case circumstances, including the nature of the alleged conduct and injuries, the applicants’ period in custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the anticipated duration of trial, the co-accused’s bail, and the applicants’ antecedents.

No precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that the applicants obstructed and manhandled police personnel, but noted that the injuries were simple in nature.

It also considered that the applicants had remained in custody since 31 July 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial could take further time; it took account of the co-accused’s anticipatory bail and the applicants’ explained antecedents.

On these circumstances, the Court found the applicants entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring their availability for police interrogation when required, prohibiting inducements, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the case, and prohibiting conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail applications and would not affect the trial Court’s independent decision on the merits.