Bail granted to scrap dealer based on clean criminal antecedents and complainant's no-objection affidavit.

The case arose from a complaint by Pradeep Kumar Shukla, owner of "Aarohi Goods Transport," regarding the misappropriation of 12.050 metric tons of wire loaded from Mittal Industries, Durg, destined for Pune.

It is alleged that the co-accused (truck owner and driver) used a forged lease agreement to divert the goods and sold them to a scrap dealer, Aamir Khan, who subsequently sold them to the Applicant, Surendra Yadav, for Rs. 3,62,000.

The Applicant then resold the material for Rs. 3,80,000.

The Applicant was arrested on January 25, 2026, and the police recovered Rs. 8,000 and a mobile phone from his possession.

The Applicant moved for regular bail, asserting he was a bona fide purchaser with no criminal history.

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in light of the allegations of receiving stolen property and criminal conspiracy.

The Court applied the provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

The substantive offenses were considered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Section 316(3) (Criminal breach of trust), Section 3(5) (Joint liability/Common intention), Section 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy), and Section 317(2) (Dishonestly receiving stolen property).

The Court also referenced procedural conditions involving Section 269 (Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), Section 84 (Proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 (Failure to appear) of the BNS/BNSS framework.

The Court examined the nature of the allegations, noting the Applicant’s role as a scrap dealer who allegedly purchased the goods in the ordinary course of business.

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the complainant filed an affidavit expressing no objection to the Applicant’s bail, confirming the Applicant committed no direct criminal act against him.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the charge sheet had already been filed, the Applicant had been in custody since January 25, 2026, and he possessed no prior criminal antecedents.

Considering that the trial would likely be prolonged, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary.

The Court held that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

The holding was subject to strict conditions: the Applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must remain present for all trial proceedings (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements), and must comply with all procedural mandates under the BNSS to avoid the revocation of liberty.

The Office was directed to communicate the order to the trial court for compliance.