Regular bail granted under BNSS where charge sheet is filed and applicant lacks criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Sanjay Devdas, was arrested on December 20, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 1020/2025 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur

The prosecution alleged that the applicant set fire to the house of one Chandrashekar Devdas, resulting in a financial loss of approximately Rs. 50,000/-

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated due to a pre-existing civil suit filed by his wife against the complainant's father

At the time of the hearing, the applicant had been in custody for nearly three months, and the charge sheet had already been filed

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court and Court of Session the power to grant regular bail

The substantive offense was considered under Section 326(g) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court also integrated procedural conditions related to Section 269 BNS (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), Section 84 BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 BNS (non-appearance in response to a proclamation), and Section 351 BNSS (recording of statement of the accused) to ensure trial compliance

The Court evaluated the entitlement to bail by balancing the nature of the allegations against procedural milestones and the applicant's profile

It noted that the investigation was effectively concluded as the charge sheet had already been filed in the competent court

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents, as confirmed by the State Counsel

Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicant had been detained since December 20, 2025, and acknowledged that the trial's conclusion would likely be delayed

Consequently, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to prevent the abuse of liberty and ensure the applicant's presence during the trial

It held that the applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties

The Court imposed specific conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during the evidence stage, must appear personally on key trial dates (opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements), and must comply with all proclamations

Failure to adhere to these conditions allows the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS and treat the default as an abuse of bail liberty