Regular bail is warranted after charge-sheet filing where custody is prolonged, trial may be delayed, and the complainant has no objection.

The applicant was arrested on 24 April 2026 in connection with Crime No. 29/2026 registered at Police Station Gatapaar, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109, 324(5), 3(5), 191(2), 193(3), 190 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, during a wedding procession, the applicant and co-accused persons abused members of the procession, returned to the spot, assaulted them, injured Raja Verma with a knife, damaged a vehicle and fled.

The applicant contended that his specific role was limited to damaging the vehicle, that the principal assault was attributed to co-accused Jaggu Nishad, and that he had been falsely implicated.

The charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in judicial custody since 24 April 2026, and the complainant/victim expressed no objection to the grant of bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, his asserted limited role, and the period of custody.

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the complainant’s non-objection, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial justified release on bail subject to appropriate conditions.

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

The Court considered the established bail factors, including the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the applicant’s individual role, the stage of investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of securing the applicant’s presence through conditions.

Bail was granted subject to conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

It also considered that the applicant had remained in custody since 24 April 2026, that the trial was likely to take time, and that the complainant had no objection to bail.

The applicant’s asserted limited role and the allegation that the knife assault was primarily committed by a co-accused were also relevant to the assessment of his entitlement to bail.

Balancing these factors against the nature and gravity of the offences, the Court concluded that continued detention was not necessary and that the applicant’s presence could be secured through stringent conditions.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on each date fixed by the trial court, to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS, and to face appropriate proceedings in the event of absence or misuse of bail.

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