Regular bail granted where investigation is complete, charge-sheet filed, and trial may be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 179/2026 registered at Police Station Patan, District Durg, for offences punishable under Sections 74 and 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The victim, a dental surgeon employed at the applicant’s dental clinic, alleged that the applicant repeatedly caught hold of her hand and arms, touched her thigh, and expressed a desire to establish physical relations with her.

The victim’s statement was recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), and, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and had remained in judicial custody since 26 May 2026; the State and the objector opposed bail on the ground that the allegations were serious and supported by the victim’s statement.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the allegations under Sections 74 and 75(2) of the BNS?

Whether the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, period of custody, and the anticipated duration of the trial justified release on bail?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS to consider the applicant’s prayer for regular bail.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 74 and 75(2) of the BNS, 2023.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the recording of the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in trial.

The Court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

However, it found that continued custodial detention was not necessary because the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The Court also considered that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 26 May 2026, and that the trial was likely to take some time.

Balancing these factors against the allegations, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of bail, subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence and prevent misuse of the liberty granted.

The conditions required him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, 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, and to comply with proceedings arising from any non-appearance or misuse of bail.

The Court requested the trial court to endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within six months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, subject to there being no legal impediment.