Regular bail is warranted where the charge-sheet is filed and the accused has no prior criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after his arrest in Crime No. 92/2026, registered for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 118(2), 331(5), 191(2) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, following an initial dispute at a dhaba, the applicant and co-accused returned, entered the premises, threatened the complainant and assaulted him; the complainant’s son allegedly sustained a fracture to his right little finger.

The applicant asserted that he was not named in the FIR, had no prior criminal antecedents, and had been in custody since 22 May 2026; the State noted that the charge-sheet had been filed and that co-accused had been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations, his custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and his lack of criminal antecedents.

2. Whether conditions should be imposed to secure the applicant’s attendance and prevent misuse of bail during trial.

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the basis for the High Court to consider and grant regular bail.

In determining the application, the Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the period of custody, completion of investigation as indicated by the filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The order also imposed attendance and non-adjournment conditions, with specified consequences for non-compliance, including reference to Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS.

The Court considered the allegations and the injury sustained in the incident, but also took account of the applicant’s custody since 22 May 2026, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the absence of prior criminal antecedents.

On those circumstances, and without expressing any view on the merits, it found the applicant entitled to bail.

Conditions requiring attendance, an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, and personal appearance on specified trial dates were imposed to safeguard the proceedings.

The Court directed the applicant’s release on a bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Release was subject to the attendance, non-adjournment, and personal-appearance conditions set out in the order.