An old and stale criminal antecedent does not preclude bail after filing of the chargesheet.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 555/2026 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, for alleged offences under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, between 3:57 a.m. and 4:04 a.m. on 11 June 2026, the applicant trespassed into Kamakhya Enterprises, Metal Park, Rawabhatha, by jumping over its wall and stole copper rope weighing 50 kg, brass rounds weighing 75 kg and copper plates weighing 50 kg, collectively valued at approximately ₹2,42,000.

The applicant had been in judicial custody since 28 June 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

He claimed false implication and disputed the seizure and identification of the alleged stolen articles. He had one criminal antecedent dating from 2018 under the IPC.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the alleged trespass, theft, value of the property and the criminal antecedent.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet and his criminal antecedent.

2. Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of liberty during trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The Court considered the established bail factors of the nature and gravity of the offence, the period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of the trial taking time, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The alleged offences were those under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

Bail may be conditioned by requirements relating to attendance, non-interference with the trial and compliance with the court’s process.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that the applicant had trespassed into the premises by jumping over the wall and stolen property worth approximately ₹2,42,000.

Nevertheless, it found that the applicant had remained in custody since 28 June 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

Although the applicant had one criminal antecedent, the Court considered it to be an old and stale case dating from 2018 and therefore insufficient, in the circumstances, to justify continued detention.

Balancing the gravity of the allegations against these mitigating circumstances, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

It imposed conditions requiring his attendance and personal presence at key stages of the trial, while providing consequences for absence, seeking unnecessary adjournments or otherwise misusing bail.

The release was made subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the trial, attendance on each date fixed, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and compliance with proceedings that may follow from absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.