Regular bail granted on parity after investigation concluded and the charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 81/2026 registered at Police Station Gol Bazar, Raipur, for offences under Sections 296, 351(2), 119(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 2 May 2026, after the injured Shantanu Rai met with a minor accident involving a cycle-rickshaw, the applicant demanded ₹10,000 for settlement, abused and threatened him, and assaulted him with a helmet, causing a jaw fracture.

The applicant was arrested on 3 May 2026 and remained in judicial custody. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet No. 90/2026 was filed before the trial court.

The applicant denied involvement and claimed mistaken identity, asserting that another person, Shobhit @ Janu, had committed the assault.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had three criminal antecedents.

The applicant further relied on the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused Shobhit Brahmankar in MCRC No. 6602 of 2026.

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 296, 351(2), 119(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, concerning the substantive allegations and common intention attributed to the applicant.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the likely duration of trial, and the principle of parity with a similarly situated co-accused.

The Court considered that the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the necessity for further custodial detention.

It also took into account that the applicant had remained in custody since 3 May 2026 and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the State relied on the applicant’s three criminal antecedents, the Court gave significance to the fact that the similarly situated co-accused, Shobhit Brahmankar, had already been granted bail.

Balancing the nature and gravity of the allegations against the completed investigation, prolonged pre-trial custody and parity considerations, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The High Court directed that Bajrang Chauhan be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring compliance with the trial schedule, no unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, appearance before the trial court, and personal appearance on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the applicant’s statement.

The Court further directed that a certified copy of the order be sent to the trial court for compliance.