Regular bail granted where charge-sheet was filed, trial was before JMFC, and continued custody was unjustified.

The Applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 86/2026 registered at Police Station Jutemill, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(E), 112(2), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, after Punjab National Bank, Patelpali Branch, was closed on 16 March 2026, its shutter and channel-gate locks were found broken during the early hours of 17 March 2026.

The CCTV DVR, network junction box, electrical connections and camera wires had allegedly been damaged, and an attempt had been made to break open the bank’s cash vault.

The Applicant denied involvement, asserting that there was no direct evidence against him and that no contraband or other material had been seized at his instance.

He had remained in custody since 29 March 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the case was triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

He also relied on having been granted bail in another case arising from the same memorandum, namely Crime No. 52/2026, by the High Court in MCRC No. 5586/2026 on 29 July 2026.

The State opposed the application.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(E), 112(2), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, the period of custody, the stage of investigation, the nature of the trial forum, the likelihood of delay, and the Applicant’s bail in a connected crime.

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

The Court considered the prosecution allegations and the case diary but did not make any final determination on the merits.

It found relevant that the Applicant had been in custody since 29 March 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the case was triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

The Court further took into account that the Applicant had already obtained bail in another crime arising from the same memorandum and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these circumstances against the nature of the allegations, the Court concluded that continued detention was not necessary and that the Applicant had made out a fit case for bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order also preserved the trial Court’s power to take action in accordance with law in the event of absence, misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.