Regular bail granted considering prolonged detention, completed investigation, clean antecedents, and likely trial delay.

On 7 August 2025, police responded to a motor-vehicle accident involving a Scorpio allegedly driven rashly and negligently, which had collided with a Hero Splendor motorcycle and injured its rider, Digambar Patel.

During inspection, police allegedly recovered 30 kg of ganja being transported in the Scorpio and an Ertiga vehicle.

Eight persons, including one juvenile, were charge-sheeted; the applicant was alleged to be one of the occupants involved in the transportation.

The applicant was arrested on 7 August 2025 in Crime No. 65/2025 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 20(b) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, Sections 125(a), 281, 3(5) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused persons.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the charge-sheet disclosed the applicant’s direct involvement.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations under the NDPS Act, the Arms Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Whether the applicant’s prolonged detention, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that the trial would take time justified release on bail.

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

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial.

The prosecution allegations arose under Sections 20(b) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, Sections 125(a), 281, 3(5) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Bail was granted subject to conditions requiring attendance, cooperation with the trial, and compliance with directions concerning personal presence and misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged offences and the State’s submission that the charge-sheet indicated the applicant’s direct involvement.

However, it found the relevant bail considerations favourable to the applicant: he had remained in custody since 7 August 2025, the charge-sheet had been filed, he had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

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

The applicant was required to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount and comply with the conditions imposed by the Court.

The applicant was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

He was required, inter alia, not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on each date unless sufficiently excused, to comply with proceedings arising from any proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The Court directed that a certified copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.