Regular bail granted despite criminal antecedents due to lack of identification and medical inconsistencies.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 92/2025, registered at Police Station G.R.P., Bilaspur.

On October 31, 2025, the complainant reported that while returning from Akaltara Platform No. 3, an unknown person attempted to snatch her phone and pocket, subsequently assaulting and verbally abusing her.

The applicant was arrested on November 8, 2025, based on police suspicion.

Although the victim identified the applicant in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and alleged an attempt to outrage her modesty in a statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant’s name was not mentioned in the initial FIR or the primary statement.

The investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet has been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the evidentiary discrepancies and the duration of his pretrial detention.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive offenses were considered under Sections 74 (outraging modesty), 309(5) (snatching/theft), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 296 (obscene acts), and 315(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court also referenced procedural mandates under Section 269 (non-attendance in obedience to order), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 (failure to appear) of the BNS/BNSS framework to establish bail conditions.

The Court noted that the applicant was not named in the FIR or the victim's initial statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, suggesting the arrest was predicated on suspicion.

While the victim later identified the applicant in a TIP and alleged an attempt to outrage her modesty, the Court highlighted that the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) report only reflected a general complaint of the incident rather than clinical findings corroborating a physical assault of that nature.

The Court weighed the completion of the investigation (filing of the charge-sheet) and the applicant’s detention since November 8, 2025, against the gravity of the allegations.

Despite the presence of two pending criminal antecedents, the Court determined that because the trial was likely to be protracted, continued incarceration was not warranted.

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail given the contradictions between the FIR and the TIP identification, the inconclusive MLC report, and the length of detention.

The relief was granted subject to specific conditions, including an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments and a mandate to appear personally during key trial stages such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.