Regular bail granted in fatal road-accident case after charge-sheet filing and prolonged custody without antecedents.

On 16 June 2026, Shivdayal Kashyap was allegedly struck by a Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07/CY-5936 while returning on his bicycle near Siskol Company, Rajiv Nagar.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, Deepak Kumar Anant, was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, causing fatal injuries to the deceased, who died at the spot.

The FIR was initially registered under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Sections 105 and 110 of the BNS and Sections 146/196, 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act were subsequently added during investigation.

The applicant was arrested on 18 June 2026, and the charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the circumstances in which the incident occurred, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the progress of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the period of detention and the likely duration of the trial.

The prosecution invoked Sections 105 and 110 of the BNS and Sections 146/196, 3/181, 5/180 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act; however, the bail determination was confined to the applicant’s entitlement to release pending trial and did not involve a final adjudication on guilt.

The Court treated the occurrence as a road traffic accident rather than an intentional act, noting the absence of any allegation of prior enmity or motive.

Although the allegations involved a fatality, the Court gave weight to the fact that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 18 June 2026, and that investigation had concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet.

Since no further custodial interrogation was necessary and the trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted at that stage.

Deepak Kumar Anant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The order also preserved the trial Court’s power to take appropriate action in the event of absence, misuse of bail or failure to comply with the conditions.