Bail granted where prosecution relies solely on co-accused’s memorandum statement without independent recovery from the applicant.

The applicant, Khevendra Das Manikpuri, was arrested on 24.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 77/2025 for an alleged motorcycle theft occurring on 31.07.2025

The prosecution alleged that the main accused, Sandeep Sahu, invited the applicant to accompany him on a motorcycle, which was subsequently reported stolen from the Shankar Nagar area

The applicant’s involvement was disclosed through the memorandum statement of the co-accused

Although the applicant has one prior criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet in the present matter has been filed

The applicant moved the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and his period of incarceration

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail

The substantive offence was registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), pertaining to the punishment for theft

The court also invoked procedural safeguards under Sections 269 (non-appearance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (recording of statements) of the BNS/BNSS to ensure the applicant's presence during trial

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations and the evidentiary basis for the applicant's arrest. It noted that the applicant's name surfaced solely through the memorandum statement of a co-accused, rather than direct evidence

Crucially, the Court observed that no recovery of stolen property was made from the possession of the applicant

Despite the State’s objection regarding the applicant’s single criminal antecedent, the Court found that since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in custody since January 2026, further detention was unnecessary as the trial was expected to take considerable time

The Court balanced the applicant's liberty against the state's interest by imposing stringent conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct

The holding was predicated on the lack of recovery from the applicant and the filing of the charge-sheet

The grant of bail was subject to conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; and (iii) personal presence during specific stages of the trial, such as the framing of charges and recording of statements

Failure to comply with these conditions would authorize the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed in accordance with law