Bail granted where robbery accusation lacks recovery and relies solely on co-accused’s memorandum statement.

The applicant, Chhannu Singh Dhurve, filed his first bail application following his arrest on March 1, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 10/2026.

On February 19, 2026, the complainant alleged that two unknown persons requested a lift to Village Neur and subsequently assaulted him and forcibly robbed his motorcycle at Damgarh Nala.

The applicant was implicated primarily based on the memorandum statement of a co-accused.

The investigation concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 309(4) (robbery), 309(6), 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of his pretrial detention.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail.

The court considered the substantive evidentiary value of a co-accused's memorandum statement, implying the principle that such statements require independent corroboration.

The court adhered to the principle of "bail as a rule" by assessing the necessity of continued detention where the investigation is complete and the trial is expected to be prolonged.

The court evaluated the applicant's involvement by noting that no robbed articles or incriminating materials were recovered from his physical possession.

It observed that the prosecution’s case against the applicant relied heavily on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which lacks substantive evidentiary weight on its own.

The court highlighted the applicant's profile as a 24-year-old with no prior criminal record and underscored that the charge-sheet had already been filed, minimizing the risk of tampering with evidence.

Given that the trial was likely to take a considerable amount of time and the principal allegations were directed at the main accused, the court found that the "grave nature" of the charges did not outweigh the lack of prima facie evidence connecting this specific applicant to the assault.

The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions including attendance at all trial dates and appearing for crucial stages such as framing of charges.