Grant of Bail Where Charge-Sheet Is Filed and Trial Is Likely To Be Protracted

The applicant, Santanu Dhivar, was arrested on October 14, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 397/2025 at Police Station Urla, Raipur.

The prosecution alleged that during a simple dispute between the parties, the applicant committed marpeet (physical assault) against the injured person.

The applicant sought regular bail before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

Although no counsel appeared for the applicant during the hearing, the Court proceeded to examine the merits with the assistance of the State Counsel.

The State opposed the bail by noting that the applicant has three pending criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, his period of incarceration, and the status of the investigation.

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

The court also referenced the underlying offences under Sections 296 (obscenity), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court adhered to the principle that bail may be granted if the charge-sheet has been filed, further detention is not required for investigation, and the trial is expected to be prolonged.

The Court analyzed the facts and circumstances, specifically noting the gravity of the allegations and the applicant's criminal history.

However, the Court weighted the fact that the applicant had been in custody since October 14, 2025 (approximately five months) and that the investigation was complete as evidenced by the filing of the charge-sheet.

Recognizing that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take significant time, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence and prevent the abuse of liberty.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant’s undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, to appear personally on all significant trial dates (framing of charges/recording of statements), and a warning that any violation or failure to appear would result in proceedings under Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS.

The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to communicate the order to the trial court and the applicant immediately.