Bail granted where implication rests solely on co-accused’s statement without recovery or criminal antecedents.

On August 28, 2025, a KTM 200 Duke motorcycle was reported stolen from Raipur

During the investigation of a separate case (Crime No. 360/2025), the police recorded memorandum statements from the applicant and a co-accused, Sandeep Sahu

Based on these statements and at the instance of the co-accused, the stolen vehicle was recovered from a multi-level parking area

The applicant, a 19-year-old daily wage labourer with no criminal antecedents, was arrested on January 9, 2026

The police subsequently filed a charge-sheet for the offense of theft under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given that his implication rests solely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused and no recovery was made from his possession

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

The substantive charge was Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) pertaining to punishment for theft

The court relied on the principle that the absence of criminal antecedents, the nature of the evidence (reliance on co-accused statements versus direct recovery), and the completion of the investigation (filing of the charge-sheet) are pivotal factors in the discretionary grant of bail

The Court examined the nature of the evidence, noting that the applicant was implicated primarily through the memorandum statement of co-accused Sandeep Sahu

It highlighted that no stolen property or incriminating articles were recovered directly from the applicant’s possession

Furthermore, the prosecution lacked independent corroborative evidence, such as CCTV footage, mobile location data, or witness testimony, to link the applicant to the crime scene

Considering the applicant's age (19 years), his lack of prior criminal records, the duration of his detention (since January 2026), and the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed, the Court reasoned that further detention was not warranted despite the State's opposition regarding the gravity of the offense

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail because the implication was based solely on a co-accused's statement without supporting seizure from the applicant

The release is subject to conditions, including an undertaking not to seek adjournments during witness testimony and mandatory presence at key trial stages, with failure to comply potentially resulting in proceedings under Section 209 or 269 of the BNS