Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail To Man Accused In Alleged Roadside Attack, Citing Bail For Co-Accused

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations and circumstances of the case

The court held

The Court allowed the application and directed the applicant’s release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹25,000 with one surety in the like amount, subject to conditions concerning adjournments, attendance before the trial court, compliance with processes to secure his presence, and personal attendance at specified stages of trial

It also directed

The Registry was directed to send a certified copy of the order to the trial court.

01Facts

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 87/2026, registered for offences under Sections 109(1), 189, 190, 351, 126, 127 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act

¶ 1

The prosecution alleged that the complainant and another person were intercepted and assaulted by Manish Agrawal and his companions on 19 May 2025

¶ 2

The applicant submitted that he was not named in the FIR, that three co-accused had been granted bail, and that he had been in custody since 2 October 2026

¶ 3

The State opposed bail but did not dispute that the co-accused had been released on bail

¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations and circumstances of the case

¶ 1, 5–6

ii.2. Whether the grant of bail to the co-accused, together with the applicant’s custody and the stage of the proceedings, supported granting bail to the applicant

¶ 3–6

03Law Applied

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the basis for the High Court to consider an application for regular bail

¶ 1

In deciding the application, the Court considered the circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period in custody, parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, and the likely duration of the trial

¶ 6

The order cites no precedent.

Provisions in the judgment · 13 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Section 84 Section 351

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 9 provisions

Section 109 Section 189 Section 190 Section 351 Section 126 Section 127 Section 3 Section 269 Section 209

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25

04Reasoning

The Court considered the nature of the allegations but also noted that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 2 October 2026, and the trial was likely to take time

¶ 6

It further took account of the bail granted to other co-accused, which the State did not dispute

¶ 4, 6

On these circumstances, and without expressing any view on the merits, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail

¶ 6