Grant of regular bail for bailable offenses involving damage to public property and rash driving.

The applicant, Dilesh Porte, was arrested on February 2, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 26/2026.

The prosecution alleged that on the same date at 2:30 a.m., the applicant drove a trailer (registration No. CG 10 BY 6696) in a rash and negligent manner, colliding with an electricity pole carrying an 11 KV and LT composite line.

This resulted in property damage to the Electricity Department valued at Rs. 89,980/-.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, contending he was falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed while he remained in custody since the date of the incident.

1. 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 offenses and the duration of his pretrial detention.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive charges were brought under Sections 281 (Rash driving) and 324(3) (Mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act; and Section 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The Court adhered to the principle that bail is a matter of discretion based on the severity of the punishment (noting whether the offense is punishable by death or life imprisonment) and the likelihood of the trial's conclusion timeframe.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations—specifically the financial loss and damage to public infrastructure—against the applicant’s personal circumstances.

It noted that although the act involved rash and negligent driving causing damage to a public utility, the offenses charged are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry the maximum penalties of death or life imprisonment.

The Court further observed that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had been submitted, the applicant had no prior criminal record, and he had been incarcerated for over two months (since February 2, 2026).

Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court reasoned that further detention was unnecessary.

The Court ordered the applicant's release upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence at every hearing or face proceedings under Section 269 BNS; (iii) strict penalties for misuse of liberty under Section 209 BNS; and (iv) personal appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS.