Charge-sheet filing and simple nature of injuries warrant bail despite the accused’s previous criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Jeet Bharti, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 19/2026 registered at Police Station Kurud for allegedly assaulting the complainant with a danda, using abusive language, and forcibly snatching a mobile phone following a minor dispute

The complainant sustained simple injuries as a result of the incident

The applicant has been in custody since January 21, 2026, and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent court

The applicant contended that the prosecution story was concocted, noting that no incriminating articles were seized except for Rs. 500/-, which failed to substantiate the allegation of loot

The State opposed bail, highlighting one criminal antecedent of a similar nature from 2025

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the nature of the allegations and the period of incarceration

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail

The substantive offences were considered under Sections 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 309(6) (robbery), and 238 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court also referenced the procedural consequences of bail default under Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS and BNS

The court relied on the principle that bail may be granted when injuries are simple, no substantial recovery is made, and the trial is expected to be prolonged

The court observed that the dispute appeared to have arisen from a minor altercation and emphasized that the injuries sustained by the complainant were categorized as "simple"

The court noted a lack of substantial incriminating material to support the charge of robbery, as only Rs. 500/- was recovered from the applicant, and the case rested largely on a memorandum statement

While the court acknowledged the applicant's criminal antecedent from 2025, it weighed this against the fact that the applicant had been in jail since January 2026 and that the charge-sheet had already been submitted

Finding that the conclusion of the trial would likely take significant time, the court determined that continued detention was not warranted

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant not seeking unnecessary adjournments, remaining present for all trial dates, and complying with procedural mandates for framing charges and recording statements

The court warned that any misuse of liberty or failure to appear would result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita