Regular bail granted where criminal antecedents were stale, mostly ending in acquittals, and trial would be prolonged.

The applicants—Deva Kunde, Bhuneshwar @ Bhola Kunde, Shubham Kunde and Karan Kunde—were arrested in connection with Crime No. 293/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Durg, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 118(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 5 June 2026 at about 9:30 p.m., the applicants and others assaulted Arman and others and again engaged in a physical altercation when the injured persons were taken to hospital; the complainant lodged the report on 6 June 2026.

The applicants contended that the incident arose from a street fight, that counter-FIRs had been registered, that they had been in custody since 7 June 2026, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged grievous injuries and the applicants’ criminal antecedents.

During the hearing, the applicants also sought amendment/correction of the bail application because Section 118(2) BNS had allegedly been added subsequently in the charge-sheet but had not been considered in the Trial Court’s bail-rejection order.

1. Whether the application for amendment/correction of the bail application could be allowed when the applicants had not previously sought bail before the Trial Court for the subsequently added offence under Section 118(2) BNS.

2. Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in respect of the offences considered in the bail application.

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

It considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the likely duration of the trial, and the applicants’ criminal antecedents while exercising bail discretion.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that an offence subsequently added in the charge-sheet, for which the accused had not sought bail before the Trial Court and which was not covered by the Trial Court’s bail-rejection order, should first be placed before the Trial Court for appropriate consideration.

Bail was made subject to personal bonds, sureties, and conditions securing the applicants’ presence and preventing misuse of liberty.

The Court rejected the amendment application because Section 118(2) BNS had been added after the initial registration and had not formed part of the Trial Court’s bail-rejection order; consequently, the applicants were left free to seek bail for that offence before the Trial Court in the first instance.

On the substantive bail application, the Court noted that the applicants had remained in custody since 7 June 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

Although the State relied on the applicants’ criminal antecedents, the Court found them to be old and stale and observed that the applicants had been acquitted in most of those cases.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court therefore found it appropriate to grant bail for the offences covered by the application.

The regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS was allowed, and all four applicants were directed to be released in Crime No. 293/2026 upon furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on dates fixed by the Trial Court, to appear personally at key stages including opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS, and to face consequences for absence or misuse of bail.