Bail granted despite criminal antecedents where implication rests primarily on a co-accused’s statement.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Tangarpali P.S. Case No. 273 of 2025, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 47/22 of 2026, pending before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, Sundargarh.

He had been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 111(2)(b), 305(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), concerning the alleged organized theft of the informant’s Bolero vehicle with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner was involved in ten similar cases.

However, the vehicle had been recovered at the instance of co-accused Kanhu Nayak, and the petitioner’s implication was principally based on the statement of a co-accused.

The petitioner had remained in custody since 7 January 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the nature of the allegations, his implication through the statement of a co-accused, the recovery of the vehicle at the instance of another accused, and the completion of investigation.

2. Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement in ten similar cases justified denial of bail despite the period of custody and absence of material indicating that he would abscond or threaten witnesses.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

It considered the presumption of innocence of an accused until conviction, the significance of completion of investigation and submission of the charge-sheet, the period of pre-trial detention, and the absence of a demonstrated risk of absconding or influencing witnesses.

The alleged offences were under Sections 111(2)(b), 305(b) and 3(5) of the BNS, relating respectively to the charged criminal conduct, theft-related allegations, and common intention as invoked in the case.

The Court also exercised its discretion to impose appropriate conditions while granting bail.

Although the State relied on the petitioner’s involvement in ten similar cases, the Court found that the stolen Bolero had been recovered at the instance of co-accused Kanhu Nayak and that the petitioner’s implication was based on the statement of a co-accused.

The petitioner had been in custody since 7 January 2026 and the investigation had culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet, reducing the justification for continued custodial detention.

Considering these circumstances collectively, the petitioner’s pre-trial detention, the presumption of innocence, and the absence of material suggesting that he would abscond or pose a threat to witnesses, the Court concluded that bail could be granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The petitioner was additionally required to report to the jurisdictional police station once every fortnight, preferably on a Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, for six months from the date of actual release.

The Investigating Officer-in-Charge was directed not to detain him unnecessarily after recording his attendance.

The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of, and the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned court and jail authorities.