Completion of investigation and absence of criminal antecedents warrant grant of regular bail.

The applicants were arrested on February 21, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 119 of 2026 for allegedly entering the "Mazar of Baba Shahb" while armed, damaging the shrine, insulting religious sentiments, and committing theft of a silver canopy

The prosecution further alleged that the accused damaged a motorcycle, a four-wheeled vehicle, and a security camera at the site

The defense contended that this was a case of false implication resulting from a communal dispute, noting that the accused party had filed a prior report (Crime No. 116/2026) against the complainant party regarding a separate incident at a temple

Following the completion of the investigation, a final report was submitted to the competent court

The applicants sought regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the completion of the investigation and the nature of the allegations

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), governing the High Court's discretionary power to grant bail

Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the timely examination of witnesses during trial

Established judicial principles concerning the assessment of flight risk, recidivism, and the potential for tampering with evidence as grounds for bail

The court weighed the gravity of the offenses against the specific circumstances of the applicants and the progress of the case.

It noted that the investigation was concluded and the final report (charge sheet) had been filed, which minimized the risk of the applicants interfering with the gathering of evidence

The court observed that the applicants—a government employee, a photographer, and a businessman—had no reported criminal antecedents and possessed stable socio-economic ties and family responsibilities, making them unlikely to flee from justice

Regarding the merits, the court acknowledged the defense’s argument of a "cross-FIR" situation, suggesting the dispute was a communal clash where the veracity of the allegations would only be determined through trial evidence

Finding no compelling reason for continued incarceration during a trial that would take time to conclude, the court determined that the applicants were fit for release

It directed that the applicants (Jitendra @ Jittu Barman, Karan Kumar @ Raju Chakrawarti, and Saksham @ Ramji Gupta) be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 each with one solvent surety of the same amount

The holding is subject to five specific conditions: mandatory attendance at all hearings, prohibition from committing similar offenses, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding witness examination

The court clarified that the order is effective until the end of the trial, subject to the trial court's power to cancel bail in the event of a breach of conditions