Bail granted where implication is based solely on memorandum statements and charge-sheet is already filed.

The applicants, Shiva Verma and Rajendra Savra, were arrested on January 19, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 13/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants entered a jewellery shop and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments.

The applicants were implicated primarily on the basis of memorandum statements recorded by the police during the investigation.

Applicant No. 1 has two criminal antecedents from 2023 and 2025, while Applicant No. 2 has no prior record.

The charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail considering their period of incarceration, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the nature of the evidence against them.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive charges were registered under Sections 331(4) (house-trespass or house-breaking), 305(a) (theft in a dwelling house, etc.), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court also referenced procedural compliance under Sections 269 (non-appearance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (recording of statement of accused) of the BNSS.

The Court balanced the gravity of the offence—theft of valuable ornaments—against the specific nature of the evidence.

It noted that the applicants' involvement was primarily established through the memorandum statements of co-accused persons rather than direct evidence or recovery of stolen articles from their possession.

Although the State opposed bail citing the seriousness of the crime and Applicant No. 1’s antecedents, the Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed, concluding the investigation phase.

Given that the applicants had been in jail since January 19, 2026, and the trial was expected to be protracted, the Court determined that further pretrial detention was not warranted, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure their presence at trial.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicants must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must remain present on all trial dates (subject to Section 269 BNSS), and must appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS. Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.