Bail Granted in Dacoity Case Absent Recovery, Identification Parade, or Direct Evidence Linking Accused to Crime

The complainant, Shatruhan Das, reported that on 12.11.2025, approximately 15–18 armed individuals trespassed into his home, restrained him at gunpoint/sword-point, and looted ornaments and cash worth ₹5,40,000.

The police arrested 23 individuals based on memorandum statements and seized weapons (katta, swords, knives) and vehicles.

Sections 310(2) (Dacoity), 310(4), 61 (Conspiracy), and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, were invoked.

The applicants, in custody since 18.11.2025, moved the High Court for regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the nature of evidence and the period of incarceration.

The court applied Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) concerning the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

Section 310(2) and (4) of the BNS regarding dacoity and preparation for dacoity.

The court also assessed the evidentiary value of memorandum statements under the BNS/Indian Evidence Act principles and the necessity of Test Identification Parades (TIP) in cases involving "unknown" accused persons in the FIR.

The Court observed that while the prosecution alleged a heinous act of organized dacoity, the applicants were not named in the initial FIR.

Their implication rested primarily on the memorandum statements of co-accused, which are of limited evidentiary value during trial.

Critically, the Court noted that no looted cash or gold/silver ornaments were recovered from these specific applicants, and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to enable the complainant to identify them.

Since the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, the Court determined that the applicants’ further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The applicants were ordered to be released on personal bonds with two sureties each, subject to conditions: they must not seek adjournments during evidence, must remain present for all trial dates, and must strictly comply with Sections 84 and 351 of the BNSS regarding appearance and recording of statements.