Bail denied where CCTV footage and recovery of stolen cash linked the accused to housebreaking.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 335/2024, Police Station Patel Nagar, registered for offences under Sections 305, 61(2), 331(4), 3(5), 123 and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and an associate broke into the complainant’s home and stole ₹77 lakh, jewellery, mobile phones and a CCTV DVR.

They were apprehended in a car with ₹67.5 lakh, two of the complainant’s phones and his daughter’s identity card; the prosecution also alleged that the applicant bought the car with stolen money.

The applicant argued that the CCTV footage did not identify the masked offenders and that the cash had been planted.

The State opposed bail, relying on CCTV footage, mobile-tower location evidence and the unexamined public witnesses.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the evidence relied on by the prosecution—including the CCTV footage and recovery of substantial cash and stolen items—provided grounds to refuse bail at this stage.

The application concerned regular bail in a prosecution under Sections 305, 61(2), 331(4), 3(5), 123 and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The judgment does not cite a specific bail provision, precedent or articulated legal test; it assesses the competing submissions and circumstances relevant to whether bail should be granted.

The Court considered the CCTV footage played by the Investigating Officer. Although the footage of the break-in showed the applicant wearing a medical mask and the co-accused with his face covered, other footage showed the alleged thieves without masks while carrying away the stolen articles.

The Court also found no convincing explanation for the applicant’s possession of ₹67.5 lakh, rejecting as unpersuasive the claim that such a large sum had been planted, particularly in the absence of any alleged enmity or motive to frame him.

The State’s concern that the applicant might pressure public witnesses who had yet to testify also formed part of the circumstances considered.

The Court expressly cautioned that its observations were confined to the bail application and were not to prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment of the evidence.

The Court dismissed the application.

It directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for communication to the applicant.