Bail Granted in Construction Material Theft Case Despite Twelve Criminal Antecedents Following Charge-Sheet Filing

The applicant filed a First Bail Application seeking regular bail following his arrest on March 9, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 225/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of September 9, 2025, the applicant and others stole iron TMT bars worth ₹1,80,000/- from a construction site belonging to the complainant, Aman Kumar Dubey.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, noting that no material was seized from him and highlighting his custody since March 2026.

The State opposed bail, pointing to the applicant’s twelve prior criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), considering the nature of the allegations and his criminal history.

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

Section 303(2) (punishment for theft) and Section 3(5) (common intention/joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Procedural safeguards and conditions under Section 269 of BNS (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), Section 84 of BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 351 of BNSS (accused's statement).

The Court balanced the gravity of the offense against procedural milestones and the duration of the applicant's incarceration.

While acknowledging the prosecution's concern regarding the twelve criminal antecedents, the Court noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The Court reasoned that since the trial was likely to take a considerable amount of time to conclude and the applicant had been in jail since March 9, 2026, continued pre-trial detention was not warranted.

To mitigate the risk posed by the applicant's history and ensure his presence, the Court opted to impose stringent conditions, including an undertaking against seeking adjournments and personal appearance mandates.

The holding was contingent on several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during evidence, must appear personally on all fixed dates, and must comply with all proclamations or face proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS; trial court was authorized to treat any breach as an abuse of liberty.