Absence of recovery and completion of investigation justify bail despite existence of pending criminal antecedents.

On January 5, 2025, a temple priest reported the theft of offerings from a donation box at Police Station Shujalpur Mandi

Following the report, an FIR was registered against unknown offenders under Sections 331(4), 305(a), and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The applicants, Suraj and Sultan, were arrested on January 12, 2026, and have remained in judicial custody since that date

The investigation has been completed, and the final report (charge sheet) has been submitted to the court

Notably, no stolen property or incriminating material was recovered from the applicants

Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, despite having three pending criminal antecedents each

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant bail

It relied on the principle that the gravity of the offence must be balanced against the socio-economic status of the accused and the likelihood of recidivism or tampering with evidence

The court further distinguished between "criminal antecedents" and "previous convictions," noting that pending trials do not equate to a substantial criminal past that necessitates continued incarceration

The court evaluated the merits of the bail application by contrasting the State's objection regarding the applicants' criminal history with the lack of physical evidence linking them to the present crime

Although the State pointed to three criminal antecedents for each applicant, the court accepted the defense's argument that these matters are pending trial and no convictions have been recorded

The court observed that because the investigation is complete and the final report has been filed, the risk of tampering with evidence is minimal

Furthermore, as the applicants are labourers with family responsibilities and no incriminating property was recovered from them, the court found no prima facie evidence of a flight risk or a likelihood of influencing witnesses

The court determined that continued jail incarceration would cause undue hardship as the trial is likely to be protracted

The holding is subject to the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with separate sureties of the same amount

The court imposed mandatory conditions, including regular appearance at hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a strict injunction against inducing or threatening witnesses

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial, provided the applicants adhere to the stated conditions