The Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the filing of a charge sheet in a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, removes the presumption of flight risk and justifies the grant of regular bail, provided the accused is not a threat to witnesses or public order. This decision reinforces the principle that prolonged judicial custody post-investigation requires justification under Article 21.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Murikipudi Joji, S/o Elisha, aged 37, is the sole accused in Crime No. 24 of 2026 registered at Amaravathi Police Station, Palnadu District, under Sections 64, 62, 74, 76, 115(2), 329(4), and 75(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The case arose from an alleged incident involving the victim and her family on 13.02.2026. The petitioner claims that he was attacked by the de-facto complainant’s relatives at approximately 10:00 p.m. on that date, but no FIR was registered against them at the time. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, which led to the registration of Crime No. 44 of 2026 against the complainant’s relatives under Sections 118(1) and 79 of BNS.
Key Facts
- The initial FIR was registered on 14.02.2026 under Sections 74, 76, and 115(2) of BNS.
- On 01.03.2026, the victim and her mother provided statements to the police, after which Sections 64 and 62 of BNS were added to the case.
- The petitioner was arrested and has been in judicial custody since 02.03.2026.
- The investigation was completed, and the charge sheet was filed prior to the bail application.
- The victim and her mother refused to undergo medical examination, as noted in the charge sheet.
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record.
Procedural History
- 13.02.2026: Alleged incident involving petitioner and de-facto complainant’s family.
- 14.02.2026: Crime No. 24 of 2026 registered against petitioner under Sections 74, 76, and 115(2) of BNS.
- 01.03.2026: Victim’s statement recorded; Sections 64 and 62 of BNS added to the case.
- 02.03.2026: Petitioner taken into judicial custody.
- Prior to 06.05.2026: Investigation completed; charge sheet filed.
- 06.05.2026: Criminal Petition No. 3688/2026 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking regular bail.
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail pending trial, offering to furnish personal bond with two sureties, comply with reporting conditions, and refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether regular bail can be granted under Section 439 CrPC when the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed, particularly in cases under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where the accused is not alleged to be a flight risk or a threat to witnesses.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Sri Khaja Khutubuddin Shaik, learned counsel, submitted that the investigation had concluded and the charge sheet had been filed, removing any justification for continued custody. He emphasized that the petitioner had no history of absconding, was cooperating with the investigation, and had no prior criminal record. He further argued that the de-facto complainant’s family had themselves been charged in a separate case, indicating mutual hostility rather than a one-sided accusation. He prayed for bail on the condition of personal bond and weekly reporting.
For the Respondent
The Assistant Public Prosecutor, Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, acknowledged that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed. She noted that the victim and her mother had refused medical examination, which may affect the prosecution’s case. However, she did not oppose bail outright, stating that the State had no objection if the Court deemed it appropriate under the circumstances.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody since 02.03.2026, a period exceeding one month, and that the investigation had been concluded with the filing of the charge sheet. The Court relied on the settled principle that once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet filed, the necessity for continued custody diminishes significantly, especially in the absence of any indication that the accused will abscond or obstruct justice.
"The filing of the charge sheet indicates that the prosecution has gathered sufficient material to proceed to trial. Continued custody beyond this stage requires compelling reasons, which are absent in the present case."
The Court noted that the petitioner had not attempted to flee, had cooperated with the investigation, and had no history of criminal conduct. The Court also considered the fact that the complainant’s family had been charged in a separate case, which undermined any claim of the petitioner being a sole aggressor. The Court further held that the refusal of the victim to undergo medical examination did not negate the seriousness of the allegations but did not justify indefinite detention.
The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to liberty. The Court found no grounds to deny bail on the basis of the nature of the offences under BNS, as the provisions do not categorically bar bail after charge sheet filing.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court granted regular bail subject to the following conditions: (1) execution of a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Guntur; (2) appearance before the Investigating Officer as required; (3) no tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses; (4) weekly reporting to the Amaravathi Police Station every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. until cognizance is taken; (5) no commission of any future offence; and (6) surrender of passport or submission of an affidavit stating non-possession. The Court clarified that the order does not prejudge the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Charge Sheet Filing Triggers Reassessment of Custody
- Practitioners must argue for bail immediately upon charge sheet filing, regardless of the seriousness of the BNS offences.
- Judicial custody beyond the filing of the charge sheet requires the prosecution to demonstrate specific risks of flight, tampering, or witness intimidation.
- Courts are expected to apply the presumption of liberty under Article 21 more rigorously post-charge sheet.
Conditions Must Be Reasonable and Tailored
- Weekly reporting conditions are permissible but must be proportionate to the nature of the case.
- Passport surrender is justified only if there is a credible risk of international flight, not as a routine condition.
- Affidavits on non-possession of passport are sufficient and should not be treated as procedural hurdles.
Prosecution’s Silence Can Be Deemed Non-Objection
- When the prosecution does not oppose bail after charge sheet filing, courts may treat this as tacit acknowledgment that custody is no longer necessary.
- Courts should not impose additional conditions without clear justification, even if the offence is serious.
BNS Does Not Override Constitutional Bail Principles
- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does not contain blanket prohibitions on bail after charge sheet filing.
- Courts must apply the same bail jurisprudence under Section 439 CrPC as under the old IPC regime.
- The nature of the offence under BNS is not a standalone ground for denial of bail if the accused is not a flight risk.
