Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing, clean antecedents, prolonged custody, and likely trial delay.

The applicant, Jairaj Tandi, aged about 20 years, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 620/2026 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, for alleged offences under Sections 309(4), 309(5), 317(5), 317(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 20 June 2026, the applicant and other accused persons robbed the complainant, Nitish Kumar, of a mobile phone and ₹1,800, assaulted him with a knife, and fled from the spot.

The complaint was lodged on 8 July 2026, and the applicant was arrested on 9 July 2026.

The applicant contended that he had been implicated primarily on the memorandum of a co-accused, that the seized articles were not recovered from his exclusive possession, that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and that the mobile-phone bill stood in the name of another person.

He also relied on his young age, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, parity with a co-accused granted bail, and the fact that the trial would take time.

The State opposed the application, while acknowledging that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were governed by Sections 309(4), 309(5), 317(5), 317(2) and 126(2) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court considered the established bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused’s antecedents, the period of custody, the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court also imposed conditions requiring the applicant’s attendance, cooperation with the trial, and non-misuse of the liberty of bail.

After examining the case diary, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, but also took into account that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and he had remained in custody since 9 July 2026.

Since investigation was complete, the immediate possibility of the applicant interfering with the investigation was reduced.

The Court further found that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take some time.

Balancing these circumstances against the allegations, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for release on bail.

The bail was made subject to stringent conditions designed to secure his presence, prevent adjournments when witnesses were available, and address any misuse of bail.

The applicant was required to avoid unnecessary adjournments, remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates, appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and comply with the consequences prescribed in case of absence, absconding, or misuse of bail.