Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing where continued custody was unwarranted and trial was likely to take time.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 514/2026 registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 119(1), 351(3), 3(5), 296 and 324(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on 22 July 2026, the applicant and his associates stopped the complainant and Akshay Premi near Semra Market, threw chilli powder at them, demanded money for liquor, threatened them, assaulted Akshay Premi, damaged and took his mobile phone, and caused the disappearance of ₹1,300/- from his pocket.

The applicant claimed false implication, asserting that he had lent ₹5,000/- to Akshay Premi and that the complaint was lodged to avoid repayment after the complainant allegedly abused and assaulted him.

The State opposed bail on the grounds that the applicant was specifically named, there were allegations of assault and injury, and he had one criminal antecedent.

This was the applicant’s first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; he had been in custody since 23 July 2026 and the charge-sheet had been filed.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations, his criminal antecedent, period of custody, and the filing of the charge-sheet?

2. Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence during trial and preventing misuse of the liberty of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings, the period of incarceration, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood that the trial would take time.

The bail order was made subject to conditions requiring the applicant’s attendance, restricting unnecessary adjournments, requiring personal presence at important stages of trial, and permitting consequential action in the event of misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegations that the applicant was specifically named and had allegedly assaulted and injured the victim, as well as the existence of one criminal antecedent.

However, without expressing any opinion on the merits, it gave weight to the fact that the applicant had been in custody since 23 July 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On balancing these factors, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS.

The risk of non-appearance or delay was addressed through conditions requiring attendance, personal presence at specified stages, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The High Court directed his release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The applicant was required not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on each date fixed by the Trial Court, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, and to comply with further directions concerning misuse of bail and non-appearance.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the Trial Court for compliance.