Regular bail granted where charge-sheet is filed, antecedents are absent, and trial is likely to be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 237/2026 registered at Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 309(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 20 June 2026, the complainant was returning home after selling vegetables when three unknown persons travelling in vehicle No. CG-11BQ-3519 allegedly robbed him of ₹8,000 and his mobile phone and assaulted him.

The complainant lodged an oral report on 21 June 2026, following which the applicant was arrested during investigation.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), asserting that he had been falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 22 June 2026, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed the bail application.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial.

If bail is granted, what conditions should be imposed to secure the applicant’s presence and prevent misuse of the liberty of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the relevant bail factors, namely, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the period of detention, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the likely time required for conclusion of the trial.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 309(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court also imposed attendance and non-adjournment conditions, with consequences for absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 22 June 2026, the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had no previous criminal antecedents.

Although the allegations involved robbery and assault, the Court balanced the nature and gravity of the offences against the applicant’s period of detention and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

On that cumulative assessment, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the discretionary relief of regular bail.

To protect the integrity of the trial, it required the applicant to furnish a personal bond with two sureties and comply with specified conditions concerning attendance, evidence, framing of charge, recording of his statement, and non-obstruction of proceedings.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him, among other things, not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to attend the trial, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement, and to face proceedings in accordance with law in the event of deliberate absence or misuse of bail.

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