Bail granted where implication relies solely on co-accused's statement without recovery of incriminating material.

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) following his arrest on February 13, 2026.

On February 12, 2026, police apprehended four individuals—Shivam Sinha, Digambar Sahu, Sevak Kashyap, and Shiva Verma—following a report that they were brandishing firearms to threaten residents.

Weapons, including a pistol and a country-made katta, were recovered from Shivam Sinha and Digambar Sahu.

Although the applicant was not named in the FIR and no weapons were recovered from his possession, he was implicated based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused.

The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained in custody since his arrest.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given that he was not named in the FIR and no recovery was made from him.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Substantive charges were registered under Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (organized crime), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court's reasoning rested on the principle that implication based solely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, in the absence of corroborative recovery or prior criminal record, weighs in favor of granting bail during the pendency of the trial.

The Court noted that the applicant's name was absent from the initial FIR and his involvement was suggested only through statements made by co-accused persons while in custody.

Crucially, the prosecution failed to demonstrate any recovery of incriminating weapons from the applicant's possession.

The Court also took cognizance of the State's submission that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

Considering the applicant's lack of criminal history and the fact that he had been incarcerated since February 13, 2026, the Court determined that as the trial's conclusion would be delayed, the applicant met the criteria for release.

The Court found no immediate necessity for continued detention as the applicant appeared to have been implicated primarily through hearsay-style memorandum statements.

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during the evidence stage, must appear on all trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS), and must comply with all procedural requirements under Section 209 and 269 of the BNS to avoid the revocation of liberty.

The Court held that the lack of recovery and the nature of the implication justified bail without commenting on the final merits of the case.