Bail granted where investigation is complete, custody is prolonged, and trial is likely to be delayed.

The complainant allegedly locked his house on 16 May 2026 and left for Raipur with his family.

On 21 May 2026, the house was found broken into, and gold and silver ornaments and approximately ₹20,000 in cash were reported missing.

During investigation, the applicant, Arun Salve, and co-accused Sanjay Khare were apprehended at Bilaspur while allegedly attempting to sell the stolen ornaments.

Pursuant to their memorandum statements, ornaments and cash were allegedly recovered, including property worth approximately ₹5,78,935 in total.

The applicant was arrested on 1 June 2026 in Crime No. 172/2026 registered at Police Station Bhatapara (City) for offences under Sections 305(A), 331(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

After completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, he filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the alleged recovery and the applicant’s two criminal antecedents, including cases under the NDPS and Excise Acts.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the alleged recovery, the completion of investigation and his period of custody?

Whether the applicant’s alleged criminal antecedents and the recovery of stolen ornaments and cash justified rejection of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The Court considered the general bail principles relating to the nature of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the evidentiary significance of an alleged recovery pursuant to a memorandum statement, the applicant’s period of custody, the completion of investigation and the likely duration of trial.

The alleged offences were those under Sections 305(A), 331(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The bail conditions were imposed with reference to the applicant’s obligation to attend trial and the statutory consequences of non-appearance or misuse of bail, including Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS and Sections 84 and 351 of the BNSS.

The Court noted that the prosecution case principally relied on the alleged recovery of stolen ornaments and cash pursuant to the applicant’s memorandum statement.

The Court treated the evidentiary value and ultimate admissibility of that material as matters for determination at trial, without expressing any final opinion on the merits.

Although the State pointed to the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the alleged seizure of property, the Court gave weight to the fact that the applicant had been in custody since 1 June 2026, the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Since the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court found that continued detention was not warranted at the bail stage.

Arun Salve was directed to be released in Crime No. 172/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings concerning non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.