Bail granted after charge-sheet filing where prolonged custody and further interrogation were unnecessary.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 375/2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 303(2), 303(a), 112(1), 2 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the complainant’s Honda Shine motorcycle was stolen from his residence on 14 March 2026 after the lock of the gate was broken. During investigation, the applicants were allegedly linked to similar thefts in various districts and were apprehended in another case by Police Station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon. Their alleged confessional or memorandum statements led to their implication in the present case.

The applicants contended that they had been falsely implicated, that the case substantially rested on their memorandum statements, that they had been in custody since 29 April 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed. They also relied on bail orders passed in some other cases.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicants were habitual offenders with several criminal antecedents and that property worth approximately ₹3,00,000 had been recovered from them.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the existence of criminal antecedents.

Whether, notwithstanding the allegations of repeated thefts, recovery of property, and the applicants’ criminal antecedents, their continued custodial detention was necessary.

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

The Court considered the established bail principles that continued detention must be justified by the needs of investigation, the seriousness of the allegations, the likelihood of the accused fleeing or interfering with the proceedings, and the overall circumstances of the case.

The Court also considered the statutory offences alleged under Sections 303(2), 303(a), 112(1), 2 and 3(5) of the BNS, while expressly refraining from adjudicating the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court noted that the applicants had remained in custody since 29 April 2026 and that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby substantially reducing the need for further custodial interrogation.

Although the State relied on the applicants’ criminal antecedents, alleged habitual offending, and recovery of property, the Court attached significance to the fact that the applicants had already been granted bail in some of the other cases by the Sessions Court and by the High Court.

Since the investigation was complete and the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court held that further detention was not warranted.

The Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits and imposed conditions intended to secure the applicants’ presence and prevent abuse of the liberty granted.

The Court directed that Setthi Vijay, Setthi Surya, and Shashi Kumar be released in Crime No. 375/2026 upon furnishing personal bonds with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings in the event of proclamation and non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court directed that a certified copy of the order be sent to the trial court for compliance.