Regular bail granted upon charge-sheet filing, absence of criminal antecedents, custody, and likelihood of prolonged trial.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 461/2026 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 333, 324(2), 326(G), 191(1) and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 20 June 2026, the applicant, along with co-accused persons, forcibly entered a plot where the complainant and other persons were working, abused and assaulted them with fists, plastic pipes and sticks, and damaged articles kept in the verandah.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, that no specific overt act was attributed to him, and that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of approximately sixteen hours.

The applicant had been in custody since 28 June 2026 and had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the material in the case diary.

Whether the applicant’s custody period, lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated delay in trial justified release on bail.

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

In exercising this discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available in the case diary, the applicant’s period of custody, criminal antecedents, the status of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

Bail was granted without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court considered the prosecution allegations and the case-diary material but did not undertake a detailed assessment of the applicant’s guilt at the bail stage.

It gave weight to the applicant’s custody since 28 June 2026, absence of criminal antecedents, the submission that the charge-sheet had been filed, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

Although the State relied on the allegation that the applicant had caused a contusion to the injured person, the Court found that the overall circumstances justified exercise of its discretionary power under Section 483 BNSS.

The order was expressly made without further commenting on the merits of the case.

Sameer Tandon be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation and absence, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.