Bail granted despite recovery of the looted phone, given custody, no antecedents, and likely trial delay.

The complainant reported that three persons stopped him while he was cycling home and forcibly took his mobile phone.

During the investigation, the phone was allegedly recovered from Vishal Singh, who stated that he had purchased it from co-accused Prince Yadav.

Singh was arrested on 24 July 2026 and charged under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He sought regular bail, submitting that he did not know the phone was stolen, had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the alleged recovery but acknowledged that Singh had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the alleged recovery, the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody, and his lack of criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In determining bail, the Court considered the overall circumstances, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, the alleged recovery, the applicant’s custody, criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated duration of trial.

No precedent was cited.

The Court weighed the alleged recovery of the complainant’s phone from the applicant against the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 24 July 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was likely to take time.

On an overall assessment of these circumstances, it found that the applicant deserved regular bail.

It directed the applicant’s release upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair and expeditious trial and requiring the applicant to attend every hearing until disposal of the trial.