Unexplained FIR delay and absence of medical evidence justify grant of bail in robbery cases.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 321/2025 for alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 309(6), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecution alleged that on September 25, 2025, the applicant and three others intercepted the complainant, assaulted him, and forcibly took ₹4,000 and a mobile phone

The FIR was lodged on November 18, 2025, nearly three months after the incident

The applicant contended that the delay was unexplained, the complainant and applicant were acquaintances, the phone was borrowed, and a medical examination conducted on November 19, 2025, revealed no visible injuries

The applicant has been in custody since November 20, 2025, and the charge-sheet has been filed

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the delay in the FIR and the absence of medical evidence of injury.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the authority to grant regular bail

It also considered the substantive offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Section 126(2) (punishment for wrongful restraint), Section 309(6) (robbery/extortion), and Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation)

The Court relied on the principle that bail may be granted when the investigation is complete (charge-sheet filed), the accused has no criminal antecedents, and the trial's conclusion is expected to take significant time

The Court examined the nature and gravity of the offences in conjunction with the evidence presented.

It noted a significant three-month delay in lodging the FIR, which remained unexplained despite the parties residing in the same locality

The Court found that the prosecution's narrative of "marpeet" (beating) was weakened by the medical officer's report, which found no visible injuries on the complainant

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the applicant has no prior criminal record and that the filing of the charge-sheet indicates the completion of the investigation

Given that the applicant had already served nearly four months in jail and the trial would not conclude immediately, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was not warranted

The holding established that the absence of criminal history, the completion of the investigation, and discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence (medical and procedural delay) justified the grant of bail

The release is subject to conditions, including a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence during key trial stages (framing of charges and statement recording), and consequences for the misuse of liberty under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS