Grant of bail for extortion threats involving BNS provisions despite accused's extensive criminal history.

The applicant, Ritesh @ Chintu, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the dismissal of his first application as withdrawn on 31.03.2026.

The prosecution alleged that on 30.01.2026, the applicant and a co-accused entered the complainant’s medical shop, used abusive language, and threatened him to vacate the shop or pay Rs. 50,000/- under threat of being shot.

The applicant has been in custody since 19.02.2026.

CCTV footage showed the accused were empty-handed, and no firearms were recovered during the investigation.

The State opposed bail, citing 20 criminal antecedents against the applicant.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite having significant criminal antecedents.

2. Whether the material on record prima facie establishes the charged offences under Sections 296, 119(1), and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It considered the principles of bail jurisprudence regarding the gravity of the offence versus the period of incarceration and the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

The court also assessed the prima facie ingredients of Section 296 (obscenity/abuse), Section 119(1) (punishment for criminal intimidation), and Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court observed that while the applicant has 20 criminal antecedents, the specific allegations in the current FIR appeared to lack prima facie substance regarding the use of force.

The CCTV footage corroborated that the applicant was empty-handed, and the absence of recovered weapons weakened the prosecution's claim of an immediate threat to life.

The Court noted that the trial would take time to conclude and that further incarceration was not compelling, especially as the applicant’s socio-economic status as a laborer suggested a low risk of fleeing.

The Court balanced the State's concern over recidivism by imposing "stringent conditions" rather than denying liberty.

The holding is subject to strict conditions: the applicant must mark his presence at the Police Station every Saturday until the conclusion of the trial, must not involve himself in any further offences, and must not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail stage and do not reflect on the merits of the trial.