Regular Bail Granted After Charge-Sheet Filing, Absence of Test Identification Parade, and Parity with Bailed Co-Accused.

The applicant was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he and two others assaulted and robbed a victim of a mobile phone and gold chain.

The FIR was initially against unknown persons; the applicant was later alleged to have been riding the scooter involved, and the prosecution asserted that the mobile phone was seized from him.

The applicant submitted that he was not named in the FIR, no test identification parade (TIP) was held, and the complainant later stated that he had lost the gold chain elsewhere.

He also relied on the grant of bail to a co-accused, the filing of the charge-sheet, his lack of criminal antecedents, and his custody since 20 July 2026.

The State opposed release, alleging the applicant’s involvement in the robbery, but acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed and that he had no criminal antecedents.

The Court considered its regular-bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Sections 309(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It applied no cited precedent or expressly stated multi-part legal test.

Its assessment turned on the circumstances identified in the judgment, including completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of a TIP, the complainant’s statement concerning the chain, the applicant’s lack of antecedents and period in custody, likely delay in trial, and the bail granted to a co-accused.

The Court found the relevant circumstances sufficient to grant bail: the charge-sheet had been filed; no TIP had been conducted to identify the applicant; the complainant had stated that the chain was lost elsewhere; the applicant had no criminal antecedents and had been in judicial custody since 20 July 2026; and trial was likely to take time.

It also took account of the co-accused’s release on bail, while expressly refraining from commenting on the merits.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair and expeditious trial, and requiring the applicant to appear on every date fixed by the trial Court until disposal of the case.

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