Absence of recovery and reliance on co-accused's statement warrant bail in tractor misappropriation case.

The applicant, Rohit, filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail

The prosecution alleged that one Sujan Gurjar rented a tractor from the complainant, failed to pay rent, and did not return the vehicle

Sujan, upon arrest, stated he sold the tractor to one Abid in association with the applicant

Consequently, the applicant was arrested on 15/12/2025 for offences under Sections 420 (Cheating) and 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) of the IPC

The applicant contended he was implicated solely on a co-accused's statement and that no incriminating material was seized from him

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the accusation and the lack of physical evidence seized from his possession

2. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the ongoing investigation against absconding co-accused act as a bar to granting bail

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

It considered the elements of Section 420 (Cheating) and Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) of the IPC

The court also adhered to established bail jurisprudence, evaluating the likelihood of tampering with evidence, the risk of fleeing justice, and the principle that incarceration should not be continued without compelling reasons when the trial is expected to take time

The Court observed that the applicant’s involvement was based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, Sujan Gurjar, made while in police custody

Critically, it noted that no incriminating material, such as the misappropriated tractor, was seized at the instance of the applicant

Regarding the three criminal antecedents mentioned by the State, the Court accepted the defense's submission that those matters are pending and no prior convictions exist

The Court reasoned that since the applicant is an agriculturist with family responsibilities and the investigation against him is complete (final report submitted), there is no significant risk of recidivism or fleeing from justice

The Court found the applicant's contentions *prima facie* meritorious and determined that the trial's veracity would be tested via evidence, rendering further pre-trial detention unnecessary

The direct answer to the issues is that the applicant's custody is no longer required as the investigation regarding him is complete and no recovery was made from him

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular attendance at hearings, non-participation in similar offences, and refraining from tampering with evidence or witnesses

This order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial