Absence of independent corroboration beyond co-accused’s memorandum statement warrants grant of bail in theft case.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest on February 2, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 22/2026.

The prosecution alleged that on January 26, 2026, during a wedding reception at Manthan Banquet, Sirol, an unknown person stole a handbag containing cash (₹20,000), gift envelopes, an iPhone 16 Pro, diamond jewelry, and cards.

The applicant was implicated primarily based on a memorandum statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated and that no independent evidence linked him to the crime.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s four prior criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) despite having criminal antecedents and being named in a co-accused's statement.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of bail.

It applied the settled legal principle that a memorandum statement of a co-accused, made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is insufficient to establish involvement in the absence of independent corroboration.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the constitutional concept of liberty, noting that prolonged pre-trial detention is an "anathema" to such liberty.

The court also assessed the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 303(2), 238, 61(2), 317(2), and 95, under which the applicant was charged.

The Court balanced the gravity of the alleged theft against the nature of the evidence and the duration of the trial.

It noted that the primary evidence against the applicant was the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which lacks evidentiary weight without independent, cogent, or corroborative material.

While the State raised concerns regarding the applicant's four criminal antecedents, the Court prioritized the fact that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

It reasoned that since the applicant is a permanent resident of District Rajgarh and the conclusion of the trial would be delayed, extending the benefit of bail was appropriate to prevent indefinite pre-trial detention.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety.

The Court imposed several conditions, including cooperation with the investigation/trial, a prohibition against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and a mandate that the applicant must not commit any further offences, or the bail would be automatically cancelled.