Bail granted where accused were not named in FIR and identification was based solely on co-accused statements.

The applicants filed first bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS following their arrest in connection with Crime No. 707/2025

On November 12, 2025, approximately 15–18 unknown persons allegedly trespassed into the complainant’s house, restrained the family at gunpoint and knifepoint, and looted ornaments and cash totaling ₹5,40,000/-

The applicants were subsequently apprehended based on memorandum statements of co-accused.

While a "gaiti" (pickaxe) was seized from Umesh Singh Thakur, no looted articles or cash were recovered from the present applicants

The applicants have been in judicial custody since November 18, 2025, and the charge-sheet has been filed

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of their incarceration

The court applied the principles governing the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The court considered the penal provisions for dacoity and criminal conspiracy under Sections 310(2), 310(4), 61, and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The legal principle relied upon was that when the identity of the accused is not established through a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and no incriminating looted property is recovered from them, the evidentiary value of memorandum statements of co-accused alone is insufficient to justify continued pretrial detention

The Court balanced the gravity of the alleged dacoity against the lack of direct evidence linking these specific applicants to the crime

It noted that the FIR was against "unknown persons" and the applicants' names surfaced only through co-accused statements, which possess limited evidentiary value

Crucially, the Court observed that the complainant had not identified the applicants and no TIP was conducted to verify their presence at the scene

While the State argued that a pickaxe was seized from one applicant and a conspiracy existed, the Court found that since the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet filed, and no looted cash or ornaments were recovered from the applicants' possession, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary

It held that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at trial and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments

The Court directed that any breach of these conditions or misuse of liberty would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law