Regular bail granted considering no criminal antecedents, completed investigation, and likely delay in trial.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 176/2026 registered at Police Station Khamhardih, Raipur, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complainant had reported that unknown persons entered his house and stole gold and silver ornaments and cash.

During investigation, the applicant was implicated on the basis of the memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, that no sufficient material connected him with the offence, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The State opposed bail and submitted that two silver coins had been seized from the applicant.

The applicant had been in custody since 11 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the alleged offences under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

Whether the applicant’s period of detention, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, anticipated delay in conclusion of trial, and seizure of two silver coins justified release on bail despite the gravity of the allegations.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In exercising this discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the material collected during investigation, the applicant’s period of custody, criminal antecedents, the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the seizure attributed to the applicant.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent adjournment and misuse of liberty, and ensure compliance with the trial process.

After examining the case diary and the material on record, the Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 11 June 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Although the State relied upon the seizure of two silver coins and opposed bail on the basis of the manner in which the offence was committed, the Court considered that the trial was likely to take time and that continued detention was not necessary at that stage.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of release on regular bail.

D. Ignesh Rao be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was made subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings arising from any absence or proclamation, and to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.