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

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 232/2026 registered at Police Station Kawardha, Kabirdham, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that, on 12 June 2026, the complainant’s son, Shahil Ali, was abused, threatened with death and struck behind his left knee with an object near the old bus stand, resulting in bleeding injuries.

The incident was reported by the complainant, following which the FIR was registered and the applicant was arrested.

The applicant denied involvement, claimed false implication, and submitted that no incriminating article had been seized from him.

The State opposed bail, principally relying on the applicant’s ten previous criminal antecedents.

The applicant had remained in custody since 13 June 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the nature of the allegations, his period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet and the anticipated duration of the trial.

2. Whether the applicant’s alleged ten previous criminal antecedents were sufficient, in the circumstances, to deny regular 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 jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the period of incarceration, whether the investigation had culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, and whether the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Bail was granted subject to conditions designed to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent delay, and regulate the use of liberty during trial.

The Court considered the prosecution allegations and the State’s objection based on the applicant’s criminal antecedents, but found that the relevant circumstances cumulatively justified release on bail.

In particular, the applicant had been in custody since 13 June 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

These factors reduced the justification for continued pre-trial detention, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations and the asserted antecedents.

The Court therefore exercised its discretion under Section 483 BNSS in favour of bail, while imposing conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, cooperation with the recording of evidence, and personal appearance at material stages of the proceedings.

The bail was subject to conditions, including not seeking adjournments when witnesses were present, appearing before the trial court on each date, complying with proceedings concerning absence or non-appearance, and personally appearing at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the statement under Section 351 BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.