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

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 61/2026 registered at Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur, for offences under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 30 June 2026, the complainant saw four persons hurriedly taking a cow towards Mudabahala-Karrajor.

On investigation, cow hide, the severed head and legs, identification tags, blood, fresh dung and a wooden block containing flesh pieces were allegedly found in a field.

The cow was identified as belonging to Tulsi Chauhan, from whom Applicant No. 1 allegedly purchased it along with the other applicants.

The applicants denied the allegations, contending that there was no direct identification or evidence showing that they slaughtered the cow, possessed the recovered articles, or intended that the cow be slaughtered.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the allegations were serious and that the investigation material prima facie connected the applicants with the offence; however, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Applicants Nos. 1 to 4 had been in custody since 4 July 2026, and Applicants Nos. 5 and 6 since 30 July 2026.

1. Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation.

2. Whether the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody and likelihood of delay in trial justified release on bail without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The substantive allegations arose under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material available in the case diary, the period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet and the likely time required for conclusion of trial.

The Court granted bail without making any final observation on the merits of the case and imposed conditions intended to secure the applicants’ presence and prevent misuse of bail.

The Court noted that the prosecution allegations were serious, but also considered that the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

It further took into account the applicants’ period of incarceration and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time to conclude.

Without adjudicating the applicants’ contentions regarding doubtful identification, absence of recovery from their possession, or lack of direct evidence of slaughter, the Court found the case suitable for bail.

The grant of bail was balanced by requiring personal bonds, sureties and strict attendance and non-adjournment conditions, including personal presence at key stages of the trial.

The release was subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the trial, attendance on dates fixed, undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and consequences for misuse of bail or non-appearance.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.