Regular bail is warranted where the charge-sheet is filed, the accused lacks antecedents, and trial is likely to be protracted.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 278/2026 registered at Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant attacked his wife with a farsa, allegedly intending to cause her death, after accusing her of infidelity, and abused her with filthy language.

It was further alleged that when their children, Pratigya and Prajjwal, intervened, the applicant also attacked and injured them.

The applicant denied the allegations, asserted false implication, relied on the marital circumstances and alleged conduct of his wife, and submitted that he had no criminal antecedents and had remained in custody since 11 June 2026.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The application was the applicant’s first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the offences alleged under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of the BNS.

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, period of custody, absence of bony injury to the applicant’s son, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of trial justified release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant regular bail in appropriate cases.

The alleged offences were considered under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of the BNS.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, the period already spent in custody, the nature of the injuries, and the likelihood of delay in the trial.

The Court considered the allegations of assault against the applicant’s wife and children, but assessed them at the interlocutory bail stage rather than determining guilt.

The filing of the charge-sheet indicated that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

The Court also found relevant that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 11 June 2026, and that no bony injury had been caused to his son.

Since the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted, subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of bail.

Pradeep Yadav be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The applicant was directed not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as required, 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 further provided for appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to a proclamation.