Filing of charge-sheet and completion of investigation justify grant of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

The applicants, Nasir Khan and Moin Khan, sought regular bail following their arrest on February 3, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 04/2026

The complainant, Sagar Gupta, alleged that on December 31, 2025, the applicants and two others forcibly entered his home, used abusive language, threatened his life, and assaulted him and his mother with hands, blows, and a steel rod

The police initially registered the case under Sections 115(2), 296, 331(6), 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); during the investigation, Sections 74 and 238 of the BNS (pertaining to molestation and causing disappearance of evidence) were added

The applicants contended they were falsely implicated due to prior enmity and noted that the allegation of molestation was an afterthought not present in the original F.I.R.

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, their period of detention, and the status of the investigation

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail

The substantive charges were considered under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 296 (obscene acts), 331(6) (house-trespass), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 74 (assault/criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty), 3(5) (joint liability), and 238 (causing disappearance of evidence)

The court also referenced Section 269 and Section 209 of the BNS regarding non-attendance and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamation for absconding persons as conditions for bail

The Court evaluated the merits of the bail application by balancing the gravity of the offences against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the applicants had been in custody since February 3, 2026, and that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge sheet had already been filed before the competent court

Regarding criminal history, the Court observed that Applicant No. 1 had no prior criminal record, while the two antecedents of Applicant No. 2 had been sufficiently explained in the application

The Court further reasoned that since no further interrogation was required and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the continued detention of the applicants was not warranted

The holding was contingent upon the applicants furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial court

The Court imposed several conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, a requirement for personal appearance at key trial stages, and a warning that any misuse of liberty or failure to appear would result in the cancellation of bail and initiation of proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS