Regular bail is warranted after charge-sheet filing when custody continues and trial conclusion is delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 08/2026 registered at Police Station Mangchuva, District Balod, for offences under Sections 105 and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 184, 185, 3/181, 66/192 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 22 March 2026, the applicant was driving Pick-Up vehicle No. CG-08/BD-2258, carrying several passengers, in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle overturned, causing the deaths of two persons at the spot and grievous injuries to several others.

The applicant contended that the incident was accidental, that the passengers had voluntarily boarded the vehicle after attending a “Chhatti” programme, and that he had been falsely implicated.

He had been in custody since 2 May 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the bail application, principally noting that the charge-sheet had been filed.

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 105 and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with the specified provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act concerning rash or negligent driving, driving under the influence, licensing and vehicle-related violations.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial.

The Court acknowledged the serious allegations involving two deaths and multiple grievous injuries but assessed the applicant’s entitlement to bail in light of the circumstances existing after completion of investigation.

Since the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 2 May 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time, continued detention was not considered necessary at that stage.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on each date either personally or through counsel, 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 authorised the trial court to take appropriate action in accordance with law in case of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.