Regular bail granted despite one similar antecedent, given joint recovery, completed investigation, and parity with a bailed co-accused.

On 21 April 2026, the complainant reported that six unidentified persons, claiming to be members of a human-rights organisation, forcibly entered and searched his house, accused him of manufacturing liquor after finding a water-filled empty container, threatened to implicate him in a criminal case, and demanded ₹20,000.

The complainant allegedly paid ₹4,000 out of fear. Crime No. 139/2026 was initially registered against unknown persons for offences under Sections 308(2), 333, 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

During investigation, the three applicants were arrested on 22 April 2026, and a joint recovery of ₹4,000 was allegedly made from them.

The applicants stated that their names were absent from the FIR, that each had one disclosed and explained criminal antecedent, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the seriousness of the allegations, the joint seizure and the applicants’ similar antecedents.

Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the seriousness of the alleged offences and their similar criminal antecedents

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ subsequent implication after an FIR against unknown persons, the joint recovery of ₹4,000, and the grant of bail to a co-accused 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.

It considered the allegations under Sections 308(2), 333, 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

In determining bail, the Court assessed the nature and gravity of the accusations, the stage of the proceedings, the filing of the charge-sheet, the alleged recovery, the applicants’ criminal antecedents and the principle of parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The bail conditions were imposed with reference to the applicants’ attendance and conduct during trial, including Sections 269 and 351 of the BNSS, Section 84 of the BNSS concerning proclamation, and Section 209 of the BNS as specified in the order.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the applicants’ similar criminal antecedents, but also noted that the antecedents had been disclosed and explained.

It attached significance to the fact that the FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons, the alleged ₹4,000 recovery was joint rather than individually attributable, and the investigation had concluded with filing of the charge-sheet.

The Court further considered the grant of bail to co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj in another case in which the applicants were also implicated.

Balancing these circumstances against the gravity of the allegations, and considering that the trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that the applicants could be enlarged on bail.

The applicants—Shyamlal Sarthi, Ramakant Minj and Anuj Bhagat—were directed to be released on bail in Crime No. 139/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court, 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 their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

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