Regular bail granted in BNS and Arms Act case considering charge-sheet filing and prolonged custody.

The applicants filed first bail applications following their arrest in connection with Crime No. 263/2025.

The prosecution alleged that a telephonic dispute led the applicants to arrive at the complainant’s dhaba armed with a hockey stick and a knife, where they allegedly abused staff and created a disturbance.

The applicants were charged under Sections 296 (Obscene acts and songs), 351(3) (Criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicants had been in custody since early December 2025, and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the filing of the charge-sheet and the duration of their detention.

The court primary applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It considered the gravity of offences under Sections 296, 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court also evaluated the necessity of custodial interrogation once the investigation is complete and a charge-sheet is filed, balancing the criminal antecedents of the accused against the likelihood of a timely trial conclusion.

The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary status.

It noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had been filed, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.

Although the State opposed bail, the Court observed that the applicants had been in jail since December 1 and 2, 2025, and that the trial would likely consume significant time.

The Court determined that the two criminal antecedents of each applicant had been sufficiently explained in the applications.

Consequently, the Court found that continued detention was not warranted and that the interests of justice would be served by releasing the applicants subject to stringent conditions to ensure their presence during trial.

The Court ordered the release of Munsif Khan and Shahrukh Hussain on personal bonds with two sureties each, subject to conditions: they must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at all trial stages (including framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS), and any default or misuse of liberty would allow the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.