Bail granted for tractor theft as charge-sheet filed and prolonged trial conclusion expected.

The applicants sought regular bail following their arrest in connection with Crime No. 447/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of December 2, 2025, a tractor-trolley was stolen from the front of the complainant's house in Village Bagbudwa.

Applicant Om Pandey was arrested on December 6, 2025, based on a memorandum statement and informant tips, though he claimed the seizure was from an open location.

Applicant Shambhu was arrested on January 23, 2026; he maintained that no stolen property was recovered from his possession.

The State opposed bail, noting that a co-accused’s anticipatory bail had been previously rejected.

Whether the applicants are entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and duration of pretrial detention.

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

Substantively, the charges involved Section 303(2) (theft), Section 305(b) (theft in dwelling house/conveyance), and Section 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court applied the established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, weighing the gravity of the offense against the period of custody and the status of the investigation.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, significantly reducing the risk of tampering with evidence.

Regarding Om Pandey, despite one previous criminal antecedent, he had been in custody since December 2025.

For Shambhu, the Court observed he had no prior criminal record and had been detained since January 2026.

The Court evaluated that because the trial’s conclusion would likely take significant time, continued incarceration was not warranted.

It distinguished the rejection of the co-accused's anticipatory bail from the present regular bail applications, focusing on the actual period of detention served by these applicants.

The applicants were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to strict conditions including: (i) undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; and (iii) compliance with appearance requirements for framing charges and recording statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply would permit the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.