Hired driver without specific overt acts is entitled to bail, distinguished from the main accused.

The applicant filed a first bail application seeking regular bail for offenses punishable under Sections 115(2), 85, 64(2)(m), 138, 351(3), and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecution alleged that the co-accused, Hemant Agrawal (the victim’s husband), and his associates forcibly abducted the victim from her parental home after assaulting her mother

The applicant, a professional car driver, was hired by the co-accused to transport them from Raipur to the victim's village

The applicant contended that he was acting in his ordinary professional capacity without knowledge of the matrimonial dispute and that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) attributed no specific overt act to him

The applicant had been in custody since January 14, 2026, and the charge sheet had already been filed

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering his role as a hired driver and the lack of specific allegations against him in the victim's statement

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which grants the High Court discretionary power to release an accused on regular bail

The court also considered the evidentiary significance of the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS

Furthermore, the court relied on the principle of parity and distinguishability, evaluating the specific role of the applicant relative to the main accused to determine the necessity of continued incarceration

The Court observed that the applicant’s role was fundamentally distinguishable from that of the main accused (the victim's husband), who faced direct and specific allegations of assault and abduction

Upon perusing the case diary and the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS, the Court noted that no specific overt act was attributed to the applicant, supporting the defense's claim that his involvement was limited to his professional duties as a cab driver

While the State opposed bail on the grounds of active facilitation of the crime, the Court emphasized that the applicant had no prior criminal record and that the investigation was largely complete with the filing of the charge sheet

Consequently, the Court found that the case against the applicant was primarily circumstantial and did not warrant further custodial interrogation

The Court held that since the applicant’s role was limited and distinct from the primary offender and no specific allegations were leveled against him by the victim, he was entitled to liberty

The bail was granted subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including mandatory appearance on all trial dates and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments