Bail granted considering prolonged detention and completion of investigation despite applicant’s prior criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 477/2025 at Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur, following a report of the theft of a silver Ganesh idol, a purse containing ₹1,00,000/-, and other valuables during a marriage function

The police initially registered the case against unknown persons but subsequently arrested the applicant based on a merchant statement

The State alleged that a "silver-like" Ganesh idol was recovered at the instance of the applicant

The applicant, who has been in custody since November 2025, argued that he was falsely implicated based solely on the co-accused's statement and that no incriminating material linked him to the theft

The applicant has four criminal antecedents, which were disclosed and explained in the bail application

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering his period of detention, the nature of the evidence, and his criminal antecedents

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant regular bail

The substantive offences were considered under Section 305(a) (theft) and Section 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Conditions tied to Section 269 of the BNS (punishment for non-attendance), Section 209 of the BNS (non-appearance in response to proclamation), Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for absconding persons), and Section 351 of the BNSS (recording of statement of the accused)

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations and the State’s opposition, which characterized the applicant as a habitual offender due to his four prior criminal antecedents and the recovery of stolen property

The Court balanced these factors against the fact that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary

The Court also took judicial notice of the applicant's period of detention since 10.11.2025 and the likelihood that the trial would not conclude in the near future

Despite the criminal history, the Court found that the explanation provided for the antecedents and the circumstances of the case warranted the exercise of discretionary power to grant bail, provided that the liberty was checked by stringent procedural conditions to prevent delays in the trial

The Court held that the duration of detention and the status of the investigation outweighed the objections regarding antecedents

The release is subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS, and must strictly comply with all trial court dates or face proceedings for abuse of liberty