Regular bail granted given completed investigation, clean antecedents, absent video evidence, and unexplained FIR delay.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 417/2026, registered under Sections 74, 296, 115(2), 309(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that they recorded the victim and her friend near a culvert, abused and assaulted them, made physical contact with the victim’s private parts, and took their mobile phones.

Two phones were later seized from the applicants, but no video of the alleged incident was found on them.

The applicants, in custody since 19 July 2026, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

They relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents, and an alleged unexplained three-day delay in lodging the FIR.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS.

1. Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the circumstances on record.

2. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, lack of a video recording on the seized phones, and delay in lodging the FIR supported release on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court to consider an application for regular bail.

The decision turns on an assessment of the overall facts and circumstances, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, custody, the stage of the investigation, criminal antecedents, and other relevant material.

The Court also imposed conditions intended to prevent interference with witnesses or the trial and to ensure the applicants’ attendance.

No precedent was cited.

The Court weighed the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s statement against the applicants’ custody since 19 July 2026, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and their lack of criminal antecedents.

It also considered that no video of the alleged incident was found on the seized phones and that the FIR was lodged about three days after the alleged incident without a satisfactory explanation.

On the cumulative circumstances, and without expressing any view on the merits, the Court concluded that the applicants could be released subject to safeguards for a fair trial.

It directed the applicants’ release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

They must not induce, threaten, or promise anything to persons acquainted with the case; must not act in a manner prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and must attend the trial Court on every date fixed until disposal of the trial.