Absence of incriminating recovery and Test Identification Parade justifies bail in dacoity preparation cases.

The applicant filed a second application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Crime No. 342 of 2024.

The first application was dismissed as withdrawn on February 27, 2026.

According to the prosecution, police conducted a raid on October 10, 2024, at Tajpur Choupati following a tip regarding a planned dacoity at Punjab National Bank.

Four persons were caught at the spot, while the applicant was arrested later on January 10, 2025.

The applicant was charged under Sections 310(4) and 310(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS 2023, given the absence of recovery, lack of criminal antecedents, and the principle of parity with co-accused.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

The Court considered the procedural necessity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) to establish complicity when an accused is not caught in flagrante delicto.

The Court also relied on the principle of parity, noting that co-accused persons in the same crime had already been granted bail.

The Court also weighed the socio-economic status and lack of criminal history against the necessity of continued judicial incarceration.

The Court observed that while the charges involved a planned dacoity, no incriminating material or weapons were seized from the applicant’s possession.

The prosecution’s failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) meant the applicant's complicity was not prima facie established.

The Court noted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

The Court noted that his case stands on the same footing as co-accused Irfan, who was granted bail in November 2024.

Given the applicant's socio-economic status and family dependencies, the Court found no substantial risk of him fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

It concluded that since the trial would take time to conclude, there was no compelling reason to continue his incarceration.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000 with one surety of like amount.

The Court imposed several conditions, including mandatory attendance at all hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a strict injunction against threatening or inducing witnesses.

The trial court was directed to ensure these conditions are reproduced on the bonds and explained to the applicant.