Regular bail granted to accused not named in FIR and without antecedents after charge-sheet filing.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on January 29, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 404/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on December 13, 2025, a dispute regarding the overpricing of liquor occurred at a shop in Hirmi. The complainant and his associates were allegedly assaulted with wooden sticks and iron rods by shop employees and their associates.

The complainant sustained grievous injuries, while three others sustained simple injuries.

The FIR was lodged on December 24, 2025, after a delay of eleven days.

The applicant was not named in the FIR and was implicated based on the memorandum statements of co-accused.

A charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant’s prior bail plea was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, on March 9, 2026.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the delay in the FIR, the nature of the evidence, and the duration of his custody.

The court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

The substantive charges were framed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Sections 296 (obscene acts), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), 127(2) (wrongful confinement), 109(1) (attempt to murder/abetment), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 324(4) (mischief), 191(2) & 191(3) (rioting), and 190 (unlawful assembly).

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the principles of personal liberty and the likelihood of a protracted trial.

The court observed that the applicant was not named in the FIR and that his implication rested solely on the statements of co-accused.

It noted a significant eleven-day delay in lodging the FIR without satisfactory explanation.

Regarding the injuries, the court highlighted that while the complainant suffered grievous hurt, the charge-sheet did not specifically attribute these injuries to the applicant, and the medical discharge summary identified the assailant as "unknown".

The court found that since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents, there was no immediate necessity for continued incarceration, especially as the trial's conclusion would likely be delayed.

The holding was contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties and adhering to specific conditions, including: (i) not seeking adjournments during witness testimony, (ii) mandatory presence at trial dates, and (iii) compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS/BNS.

The court concluded that given the applicant's custody since January 2026 and the lack of criminal history, he deserved the benefit of bail.