The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that the filing of a charge-sheet does not automatically disqualify an accused from seeking regular bail, particularly when the injuries are minor, the accused is a first-time offender, and no evidence links them directly to the weapon used. This decision reinforces the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, even in cases involving statutory offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Riyaj Khan, aged approximately 18 years, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 648 of 2025 registered at Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The case arose from an alleged altercation over the demand for money related to liquor consumption. The complainant alleged that the accused assaulted him and another person with a weapon, resulting in injuries. The police registered the case against unknown persons initially, but the applicant’s name surfaced later through a memorandum statement of a co-accused.
Key Facts
- The applicant is a permanent resident of Ward No. 4, Nagar Panchayat Kunra Hatri Chowk, Dharsiwa, Raipur
- He has no prior criminal record
- The injuries sustained by the complainants are described as simple in nature; one complainant suffered a shoulder injury classified as grievous, while the other sustained a simple injury to the leg
- No weapon or article was seized from the applicant’s possession
- The applicant was arrested on 27.12.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then
- The First Information Report (FIR) did not mention the applicant’s name
- The applicant claims the injuries to the complainant were inflicted in self-defence, as the complainant attacked him with a knife
- The co-accused, Vikas Sahu, was granted bail by this Court on 10.03.2026 in MCRC No. 2246 of 2026
- The charge-sheet was filed before the trial court prior to the bail application
Procedural History
- 27.12.2025: Applicant arrested and taken into judicial custody
- Undated: Crime No. 648 of 2025 registered at PS Dharsiwa against unknown persons
- Undated: Charge-sheet filed before the trial court
- 06.04.2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated
- His name was not in the FIR and was added only via a co-accused’s statement
- No weapon was recovered from him
- The injuries are simple and not indicative of premeditated violence
- He has no criminal antecedents
- The co-accused has already been granted bail
- He is a minor, a first-time accused, and a permanent resident with no risk of absconding
- He is willing to comply with all bail conditions
For the Respondent/State
- The charge-sheet has been filed, indicating sufficient evidence
- Two persons were injured, one with grievous injury
- No information was available regarding the applicant’s antecedents
- Bail should not be granted merely because a co-accused was released
- The seriousness of the offences under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5), 118(1), 119(1) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act warrants denial of bail
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail with conditions, including personal bond with two sureties, and compliance with court-mandated procedural obligations during trial.
The Legal Issue
Can regular bail be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to a first-time accused, aged 18, with no criminal antecedents, where the injuries are primarily simple, the charge-sheet has been filed, and a co-accused has already been released on bail?
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, as affirmed in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI. He emphasized that the applicant’s age, lack of antecedents, absence of weapon recovery, and the fact that the co-accused had been granted bail were material factors. He argued that the filing of the charge-sheet does not extinguish the right to bail, especially where the nature of the offence does not indicate a threat to society or risk of tampering. He further contended that the applicant’s claim of self-defence, though unproven, raises a reasonable doubt that must be resolved at trial, not at the bail stage.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel argued that the gravity of the offences under the BNS and Arms Act, particularly the allegation of use of a weapon and grievous injury, warranted denial of bail. She contended that the filing of the charge-sheet indicates the investigation has established a prima facie case, and that the court should not interfere with the prosecution’s case at this stage. She also noted that the applicant’s name was not in the FIR, but this did not negate the evidence gathered during investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the injuries, the applicant’s age, the absence of criminal history, and the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail. It noted that the charge-sheet’s filing does not ipso facto negate the applicant’s entitlement to bail. The Court observed that the injuries, even if one was classified as grievous, were not the result of a brutal or organized attack, and no weapon was recovered from the applicant. The Court emphasized that the applicant’s presence in custody since 27.12.2025, over three months, had already served the purpose of ensuring investigation integrity.
"Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature, and further considering that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, and one of the co-accused, namely, Vikas Sahu, has already been granted bail by this Court... this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving organized crime, repeat offenders, or serious violence. It held that the applicant’s personal circumstances and the lack of evidence linking him directly to the weapon justified the grant of bail. The Court also noted that the co-accused’s bail was granted on similar grounds, and denying bail to the applicant without a material distinction would violate the principle of equal treatment under law.
The Verdict
The applicant, Riyaj Khan, was granted regular bail. He is required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two local sureties of the like amount. He must comply with the following conditions: (i) not seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) appear before the trial court on all dates personally or through counsel; (iii) face consequences under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita if proclamation is issued under Section 84 of BNSS and he fails to appear; and (iv) appear personally on dates for opening of case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. Failure to comply may be treated as abuse of bail and lead to cancellation. The trial court was directed to receive a certified copy of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Denied Solely Because a Charge-Sheet Is Filed
- Practitioners must argue that the filing of a charge-sheet is not a conclusive bar to bail under Section 483 of BNSS
- Courts must assess the nature of the offence, the accused’s background, and risk of flight or tampering, not merely the stage of proceedings
- This judgment reinforces that bail decisions must be individualized, not mechanical
Age and First-Time Status Are Material Factors
- Applicants under 21 with no prior record are entitled to greater leniency, even in cases involving weapons
- Absence of weapon recovery significantly weakens the prosecution’s case at the bail stage
- Self-defence claims, even if unproven, create reasonable doubt that supports bail
Co-Accused Bail Can Inform Decision-Making
- If a co-accused with similar involvement is granted bail, denial to another accused without a material distinction may violate Article 14
- Courts must justify differential treatment in bail orders with clear reasoning
- This precedent supports arguments for parity in bail decisions among co-accused
