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

The applicant, Javed Khan, was arrested on 04.07.2026 in connection with Crime No. 592/2026 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, for an offence under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complainant alleged that the applicant had publicly abused him and his family and made objectionable remarks concerning Lord Krishna, the cow, and a religious organisation, thereby hurting religious sentiments.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that he was innocent, had not circulated objectionable religious material through Instagram, had explained his two criminal antecedents, and that the trial would take time.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the nature and gravity of the allegations and the applicant’s antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the offence under Section 299 of the BNS, particularly after completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet?

2. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations justified refusal of bail?

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 conduct was assessed with reference to Section 299 of the BNS, concerning deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of custody, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

The Court also imposed conditions regulating the applicant’s attendance, adjournments, personal appearance, and consequences of misuse of bail under the relevant provisions referred to in the order.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 04.07.2026 and that the investigation had concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet, reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

Although the allegations concerned objectionable remarks affecting religious sentiments and the applicant had two criminal antecedents, the Court considered that one antecedent had been disposed of and the other had been explained.

Balancing these factors against the likelihood that the trial would take time, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of release, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on scheduled dates, to 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 to face consequences for misuse of bail or non-appearance.

The trial court was requested to endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from receipt of the certified order, subject to there being no legal impediment.