Grant of bail pending trial where charge-sheet is filed and custodial interrogation is no longer required.

The applicants filed first bail applications following their arrest in connection with Crime No. 263/2025.

The dispute arose from a misunderstanding over a late-night phone call, leading the applicants to allegedly arrive at the complainant’s dhaba armed with a hockey stick and a knife.

It is alleged they abused staff and created a disturbance.

The applicants contended they were falsely implicated, that no incriminating material was seized, and cited their detention since early December 2025.

The State opposed the bail citing two criminal antecedents for each applicant.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the filing of the charge-sheet and the duration of their custodial detention.

The court's decision was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which provides the High Court with the power to grant regular bail.

The court also referenced Sections 296 (Obscene acts and songs), 351(3) (Criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Procedural compliance was mandated under Section 269 of the BNS (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant) and Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding) regarding potential future defaults.

The Court evaluated the necessity of continued incarceration by balancing the nature of the allegations against the progress of the investigation.

It noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, effectively concluding the primary investigative phase and rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.

Although the applicants possessed criminal antecedents, the Court found that these had been sufficiently explained in the application.

Given that the applicants had been in jail since December 1 and 2, 2025, and acknowledging that the trial's conclusion would likely be delayed, the Court determined that the applicants met the threshold for discretionary relief under conditions designed to secure their presence at trial.

It ordered the release of Munsif Khan and Shahrukh Hussain upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each.

The release is subject to strict conditions: the applicants must not seek unnecessary adjournments

must appear at every hearing unless excused

and must be personally present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Any violation of these terms allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.