Regular bail granted to five accused after charge-sheet filing and complainant’s no-objection.

During the intervening night of 17–18 May 2026, the lock of complainant Rajesh Singh’s house at Village Newra, District Bilaspur, was allegedly broken and 13 goats and bucks, valued at approximately ₹65,000, were stolen.

Crime No. 386/2026 was registered at Police Station Kota against the applicants for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(A) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The applicants had been in custody since 30 July 2026. The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed; the offence was triable by the Magistrate First Class.

The complainant had entered into a compromise and expressed no objection to the applicants being released on bail.

The State opposed the application, stating that the case diary was not available.

Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending trial for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(A) and 3(5) of the BNS?

Whether the applicants’ custody period, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the complainant’s no-objection, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified the grant of bail?

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 331(4), 305(A) and 3(5) of the BNS.

In deciding bail, the Court considered relevant circumstances including the period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of any stated need for further custodial interrogation or seizure, the complainant’s position, the stage and probable duration of trial, and the possibility of securing the accused’s presence through appropriate conditions.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the applicants had remained in custody since 30 July 2026, the investigation had been completed, and the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

It also took into account the complainant’s compromise and express no-objection to bail, the applicants’ previous grant of bail in two similar cases, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

Although the State opposed the application on the ground that the case diary was unavailable, the Court considered the cumulative circumstances sufficient to conclude, without expressing any opinion on the merits, that the applicants had made out a fit case for bail.

Applicants Bablu, Amur Khan, Ameen Khan, Habeem Khan and Shahruk Khan were directed to be released in connection with Crime No. 386/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial Court, non-seeking of adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and consequences for misuse of bail or non-appearance, including proceedings under the applicable provisions of the BNS and BNSS.

Although six persons were named as applicants in the cause title, the operative bail direction expressly released only the five applicants identified in paragraph 6.