Regular bail granted on parity, prolonged custody, completed investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents.

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

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 applicant had been in custody since 5 April 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Before the Trial Court, the prosecutrix had been examined and, according to the applicant, had not supported the prosecution case.

The applicant claimed parity with co-accused Dev Kumar, who had been granted bail by the High Court, and asserted that he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s direct involvement, submitting that the evidentiary value of the prosecutrix’s deposition was a matter for trial.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, the prosecutrix’s deposition, and the likely duration of the trial?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Dev Kumar, who had previously been granted bail by the High Court?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The Court considered established bail principles, including the applicant’s period of incarceration, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, absence of criminal antecedents, and parity with a similarly placed co-accused.

The Court also recognized that the evidentiary effect of the prosecutrix’s deposition was ultimately a matter for appreciation by the Trial Court and refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 5 April 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

It also took into account the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that a similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail.

Although the State alleged direct involvement and argued that the prosecutrix’s testimony required assessment at trial, the Court held that these considerations did not outweigh the relevant bail factors at the present stage.

Without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for release on bail.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on scheduled dates, to comply with proceedings in the event of absence or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order was passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.