01Facts
The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 0044/2026, registered at Police Station Pasta for offences under Sections 221, 351(2), 308(2), 356(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
¶ 1The complainant, an in-charge headmistress, alleged that the applicants and another person entered the school without permission, disrupted teaching, videographed the premises, and threatened to upload the video unless Rs. 10,000 was paid.
¶ 2The applicants denied the allegations, asserted that they had exposed irregularities at the school, and submitted that no further custodial interrogation was required; they had been arrested on 14 October 2026.
¶ 3The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicants had entered the school and demanded money under threat.
¶ 402Issues
i.Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail, having regard to the allegations, the need for further custodial interrogation, and the likely duration of the trial.
¶ 3–6ii.If bail is granted, what conditions should govern the applicants’ release.
¶ 703Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.
¶ 1The Court considered the nature of the allegations, the parties’ submissions, whether further custodial interrogation was required, and the likelihood that the trial would take time.
¶ 6The order also imposed conditions concerning attendance, adjournments, and appearance at specified stages of trial, with reference to statutory provisions identified in the order.
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483Section 84Section 351
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 221Section 351Section 308Section 356Section 3Section 269Section 209
04Reasoning
The Court weighed the prosecution’s allegation of an unauthorized school entry and a threat-linked demand for money against the applicants’ submissions that they were falsely implicated and that the complaint followed their exposure of alleged irregularities.
¶ 2–4It concluded that further custodial interrogation was not required and that the trial was likely to take time. On those considerations, and without commenting on the merits, the Court found bail appropriate.
¶ 6It addressed the applicants’ future attendance and participation in the trial by imposing conditions.
¶ 705Holding
The Court allowed the bail application and directed the applicants’ release on a bond of Rs. 25,000 each, with one surety each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court.
¶ 7The applicants must comply with the stated conditions, including avoiding adjournments when witnesses are present, attending as directed, and appearing personally at specified trial stages; the order also provides for consequences in the event of non-compliance.
¶ 7Original Court PDF
DEEPAK YADAV @ DEEPAKvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
