Bail Granted in Theft Allegations Solely Based on Co-Accused Statements Without Physical Recovery

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 243/2026 at Police Station Khamtarai

The prosecution alleged that unknown persons entered a godown and committed theft of 118 bags of mobile clamps

The applicant was subsequently arrested based on a memorandum statement of a co-accused

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, no stolen articles were recovered from his possession, and no overt act was attributed to him

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s two criminal antecedents

The applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.04.2026

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of custody?

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

Sections 305 (theft in dwelling house, etc.), 331(4) (house-trespass or house-breaking), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

Standard judicial principles regarding the exercise of discretion in bail matters, balancing the gravity of the offence and criminal history against the period of detention and the likelihood of trial delay

The Court evaluated the facts and circumstances, noting that the applicant had been in custody for over two months (since April 13, 2026)

Although the State highlighted two criminal antecedents, the Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court, indicating that the investigation was largely complete

The Court took into account that the trial is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and is expected to take considerable time to conclude

Because the investigation had reached the stage of a filed charge-sheet and the applicant was a permanent resident with no immediate risk of absconding, the Court found that continued incarceration was not warranted despite the alleged criminal history

The holding directed the release of Omprakash @ Krishna Bharti upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to specific conditions including non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments and appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS