Regular bail granted where antecedents were stale, most resulted in acquittal, and trial would be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 263/2026 registered at Police Station Aarang, District Raipur, for alleged offences under Sections 4, 6, 10 and 11 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004.

The prosecution alleged that, while the police were on patrol, they received information that four persons were transporting cattle illegally in vehicle No. CG06 GZ 9607 from Aarang to Pandhi. The police intercepted the vehicle and seized it along with three cattle.

The applicant asserted false implication and disputed the seizure. He had remained in custody since 21 May 2026; the charge-sheet had been filed; and he contended that the trial would take considerable time.

He also submitted that his criminal antecedents were old and that he had been acquitted in most of those cases.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had seven criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegations under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and the State’s reliance on his criminal antecedents?

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the age and status of his criminal antecedents, 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 a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were under Sections 4, 6, 10 and 11 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004.

In exercising its bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likely duration of the trial, and the relevance and status of the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

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

The Court assessed the competing submissions and found that the applicant had been in custody since 21 May 2026, the investigation had culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet, and the trial was likely to take some time.

Although the State relied on seven criminal antecedents, the Court considered them old and stale and noted that the applicant had been acquitted in most of those cases.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that these circumstances justified extending the discretionary relief of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

Bail was made subject to conditions, including that the applicant would not seek adjournments when prosecution witnesses were present, would remain present before the trial court as directed, and would personally attend the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The order also authorised the trial court to take action in accordance with law in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to a proclamation.