Old age, completed investigation and likely trial delay justified regular bail despite similar antecedents.

The applicant, aged 76, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 415/2026, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, for alleged offences under Sections 196, 299 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The complaint alleged that he posted an indecent comment on a Facebook post concerning Hindu deities; the applicant said the comment was made by mistake and later deleted.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and he had been in judicial custody since 8 August 2026.

The parties also addressed two prior cases concerning similar online comments, in which the applicant had obtained anticipatory bail in one and an interim order in the other.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, having regard to his age, custody, completion of the investigation, and the likely duration of the trial.

2. Whether the applicant’s two prior cases involving similar comments warranted refusal of bail.

The application was made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 196, 299 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Court cited no precedent or further legal test; it assessed the bail request on the circumstances of the case, including the applicant’s age, custody, status of the investigation and trial, and antecedents.

The Court considered the applicant’s age of 76, the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 8 August 2026, and the likelihood that trial would take time.

Although it noted two similar antecedents, it took account of the anticipatory bail and interim order obtained in those matters.

On the totality of these circumstances, and without commenting on the merits, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair and expeditious trial, and requiring the applicant to attend every hearing until disposal of the trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were for the bail application only and that the trial Court must decide the case on its own merits.