Regular bail granted on co-accused parity after charge-sheet filing, prolonged custody, and likely trial delay.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 106/2026 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 70(1) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, on 4 April 2026, the prosecutrix was forcibly taken into a chicken shop by co-accused Munna Giri, where he allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her, followed by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The prosecutrix’s husband allegedly objected to the incident.

The applicant submitted that he had been falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and that the prosecutrix had not supported the prosecution case during her deposition before the trial court. He also relied on the grant of bail to co-accused Dev Kumar @ Deepak Sidar in a similar case. The charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had remained in custody since 5 April 2026.

The State opposed bail, contending that the charge-sheet disclosed the applicant’s direct involvement and that the evidentiary effect of the prosecutrix’s deposition was a matter for the trial court.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending trial for offences under Sections 70(1) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of prolonged custody, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, expected delay in conclusion of trial, and parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail?

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

The Court considered established bail principles, including the relevance of the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the likely duration of the trial, absence of criminal antecedents, and parity with a similarly placed co-accused.

The Court also proceeded on the principle that, at the bail stage, it should not conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or express findings on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since 5 April 2026 and that the charge-sheet had already been filed. It also took into account the absence of criminal antecedents, the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, and the fact that a co-accused with a similar role had been granted bail.

Although the State relied on the applicant’s alleged direct involvement and argued that the prosecutrix’s deposition required appreciation by the trial court, the High Court declined to assess the merits of that evidence at the bail stage. Balancing these circumstances, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail without making any conclusive observation on the merits.

It directed his release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on dates fixed by the trial court, to comply with proceedings in the event of non-appearance or misuse of bail, and to remain personally present at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order was directed to be communicated to the trial court for compliance.