Bail granted for theft as charge-sheet was filed and accused remained in prolonged custody.

The applicants sought regular bail following their arrest for an alleged theft at "Arti Fuels" (a petrol pump) in Mujgahan, Raipur, occurring on the night of October 22–23, 2025.

Unknown persons reportedly stole ₹20,500 cash and mobile phones.

Toman Sahu was arrested based on a memorandum statement with no articles seized from him.

Kunal Sahu and Vinod Nishad were arrested on suspicion and have been in custody since December 22, 2025.

The police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 331(4), 305, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Whether the applicants are entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the period of custody and the filing of the charge-sheet.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The substantive charges were under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 331(4) regarding house-trespass or breaking, Section 305 regarding theft in a dwelling house/structure, and Section 3(5) regarding common intention.

The Court also referenced procedural compliance under Sections 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (punishment for non-appearance), 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), and 351 (attendance of accused) of the BNSS/BNS.

The Court evaluated the entitlement to bail by weighing the nature and gravity of the offences against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Regarding the individual profiles of the applicants, the Court observed that Toman Sahu had no criminal antecedents, while Kunal Sahu and Vinod Nishad had only one prior antecedent each, for which they had already been granted bail in a separate proceeding.

Given the duration of their incarceration (since early and late December 2025) and the lack of immediate necessity for further custodial interrogation following the filing of the charge-sheet, the Court found that continued detention was not warranted.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicants' strict adherence to trial proceedings, including a mandate not to seek unnecessary adjournments and a requirement to be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements.

Failure to comply with these conditions allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS.