Regular bail granted where no overt act alleged and no incriminating material seized from applicant.

The applicant, Kalusingh, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on information regarding a dispute over fishing at Kitkhedi Dam, an armed scuffle occurred between rival groups where multiple individuals sustained gunshot and stone injuries.

While co-accused persons were allegedly found with weapons, the applicant was arrested on 16/02/2026.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, no specific overt act was attributed to him, and no incriminating material was seized from him.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the lack of specific overt acts and the completion of the investigation.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 439 CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It also considered the substantive offences charged under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296(a), 115(2), 351(3), 324(2), 3(5), and 238 of the BNS, 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court relied on established bail principles concerning the nature of accusation, the absence of criminal antecedents leading to conviction, the socio-economic status of the accused, and the likelihood of recidivism or tampering with evidence.

The Court examined the Case Diary and noted that while other co-accused (Ishwar Singh, Bheru Singh, and Narayan Singh) were allegedly involved in firing gunshots and had weapons seized from them, no recovery was made from the applicant, Kalusingh.

The Court observed that the investigation regarding the applicant was complete and the final report had been filed.

It reasoned that since the applicant has no substantial criminal past or previous convictions for major offences, and given his socio-economic status as an agriculturist with family responsibilities, there was no compelling reason for continued incarceration.

The Court found that the applicant's arguments regarding the lack of evidence of a specific overt act had prima facie merit, and the veracity of his complicity would be a matter for trial.

The holding is contingent upon conditions including regular appearance before the trial court, refraining from committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The order is effective until the conclusion of the trial.