Absence of prior conviction and examination of material witnesses justify bail despite pending criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested on September 25, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 174/2025 for allegedly committing theft at the house of one Ishwar Singh.

It is alleged that the applicant broke open an almirah to steal gold and silver jewelry and cash amounting to Rs. 2,70,000/-.

A screwdriver was recovered at his instance.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, contending false implication and noting that material prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

The State opposed the bail, citing seven criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering his period of judicial custody and the status of the trial?

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The substantive charges were under Sections 331(4), 305(a), and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court also considered the procedural mandate of Section 346 of the BNSS (analogous to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the expeditious examination of witnesses.

The decision was guided by the principle that criminal antecedents without prior convictions, combined with a stable socio-economic status, do not necessarily bar bail if there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence.

The Court observed that the applicant had been in judicial custody since September 25, 2025, and that the material prosecution witnesses had already been examined, significantly reducing the risk of the applicant influencing the evidence.

Although the State highlighted seven criminal antecedents, the Court noted that the applicant had never been convicted and that the other matters are still pending trial.

The Court reasoned that since the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and the trial would take time to conclude, there was no compelling reason for continued incarceration.

It further noted the applicant’s socio-economic status and family responsibilities, which suggested he was not a flight risk.

Consequently, the Court found the applicant’s contentions to have prima facie merit.

The Court held that despite criminal antecedents, the lack of previous convictions and the completion of material witness testimony warranted bail under stringent conditions.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including: (i) regular appearance before the trial court, (ii) abstaining from further offences or tampering with evidence, and (iii) marking his presence at the Agar Police Station on the first Saturday of every month until the conclusion of the trial.