Grant of regular bail in land dispute involving cross-FIRs where charge-sheet is filed and antecedents explained.

The applicant, Amit Kumar, sought regular bail after being arrested on November 23, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 884/2025

The prosecution alleged that on November 22, 2025, during a land measurement dispute involving revenue officials, a scuffle broke out wherein the applicant and others allegedly attacked the complainant with sticks, causing injuries

The applicant contended he was a bystander visiting his junior advocate and was himself a victim of a coordinated attack by land mafias, as evidenced by a cross-FIR (No. 954/2025) filed by the advocate’s father

The applicant further argued that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that his two previous criminal antecedents were duly explained

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the dispute and the filing of the charge-sheet?

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the CrPC), governing the grant of regular bail

The court also considered the substantive offences charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Sections 119(3) (assault), 296(B) (criminal intimidation), 351(3) (disruption of public duties), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 111(2)(B) (organized crime), 324(4) (mischief), and 3(5) (common intention), alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The court took into account that the charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning the investigation stage was largely complete and the applicant’s presence in custody was no longer required for interrogation

It noted the "nature and gravity of the allegations" but balanced this against the fact that the incident arose from a "purely civil dispute concerning demarcation and possession of land"

The court acknowledged the existence of a cross-version of the incident and considered the applicant's prior criminal history, noting that an explanation for Section 4(a) antecedents had been provided

Given the period of incarceration since November 23, 2025, the court found that continued detention was not warranted

The holding clarified that the applicant is entitled to bail provided he adheres to strict conditions, including: (i) not seeking adjournments during evidence; (ii) appearing on all trial dates as required by Section 269 of BNS; (iii) facing proceedings under Section 209 of BNS if he absconds; and (iv) appearing personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS