Regular bail granted where chargesheet was filed, custody prolonged, and accused had no criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested on 22 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 92 of 2026 registered at Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 118(2), 331(5), 191(2) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, following an initial altercation concerning a car-servicing pipe, co-accused Shekhar Jogi returned to the complainant’s dhaba with other persons, including the applicant; the group allegedly abused and threatened the complainant, forcibly entered the dhaba, and assaulted him.

The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR, had allegedly participated only in a free fight involving assault by hands and fists, had no criminal antecedents, and had remained in custody since 22 May 2026.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the applicant and six others assaulted the complainant; however, it acknowledged that the complainant’s injuries were simple, while another injured person suffered a fracture to the right little finger.

The charge-sheet had been filed by the time of consideration of the bail application.

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 injuries, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and absence of criminal antecedents?

Whether the applicant’s release on bail should be made subject to conditions securing his presence during trial and preventing misuse of the liberty of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 118(2), 331(5), 191(2) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the nature of the injuries, and the applicant’s lack of previous criminal antecedents.

Bail was granted subject to conditions requiring attendance, cooperation with the trial, personal presence at material stages, and consequences for misuse or non-appearance.

The Court found the applicant entitled to bail after balancing the allegations against the circumstances relevant to pre-trial detention.

Although the prosecution alleged participation in a group assault, the complainant’s injuries were stated to be simple, the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents, and he had remained in custody since 22 May 2026.

The filing of the charge-sheet reduced the need for continued custodial detention, while the trial was likely to take time.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court therefore exercised its power under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of release on regular bail.

To safeguard the trial process, it imposed conditions relating to non-seeking of adjournments when witnesses were present, regular appearance, personal attendance at key stages, and proceedings in the event of deliberate absence or misuse of bail.

Rahul Jogi was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring the applicant to avoid unnecessary adjournments, remain present on scheduled dates, appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and comply with further legal consequences in case of misuse of bail or failure to appear.

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