Grant of bail where the accused only facilitated travel and primary allegations target the main co-accused.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on November 7, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 73/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on October 30, 2025, a minor girl was abducted by the main accused, Anneshwar, and another boy.

The specific allegation against the applicant is that he facilitated the crime by dropping the main accused and the victim at the Rajhara railway station.

A charge sheet has since been filed, and the victim's statement was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

Despite notice, the complainant did not appear to oppose the application.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his role as a facilitator and the period of his detention.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC).

The court also referenced Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), regarding kidnapping (corresponding to Section 363 of the IPC).

Procedural compliance regarding the victim's statement was noted under Section 183 of the BNSS, and conditions for bail were framed with reference to Section 269 (non-attendance) and Section 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the BNS.

The court observed that according to the victim's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, the primary allegations were directed at the co-accused, Aneshwar.

The court noted that the applicant's role was limited to facilitating the movement of the main accused and the victim rather than active abduction.

Furthermore, the court took into account that the applicant had been in custody since November 7, 2025, the investigation was complete with the filing of the charge sheet, and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Consequently, the court found that continued detention was not warranted under these circumstances.

The holding clarified that the applicant's limited role and the procedural status of the case justified bail.

The relief was granted subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend all court dates personally or through counsel, and must appear for critical trial stages such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat such default as an abuse of liberty.