Bail granted where the stolen vehicle was recovered from an open place and investigation was complete.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 351/2026 registered at Police Station Urga, District Korba, for offences under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, during the intervening night of 18–19 June 2026, an unknown person stole a Tata Dagger vehicle bearing registration no. CG-12BT-2852, belonging to the complainant’s brother-in-law; the applicant was subsequently arrested during investigation.

The applicant contended that the vehicle was recovered from an open place and not from his possession, that his two criminal antecedents had already been disposed of, and that he had remained in custody since 15 July 2026.

The State opposed bail, while acknowledging that the charge-sheet had been filed.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to the alleged offences under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

2. Whether the circumstances of the alleged recovery, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and anticipated delay in trial justified the grant of bail.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the alleged recovery, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, whether investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, the period of incarceration, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial.

The Court found the applicant entitled to bail because the alleged stolen vehicle had not been recovered from his possession but from an open place, thereby weakening the immediate basis for continued detention.

It also considered that the applicant’s two criminal antecedents had already been disposed of and that explanations for them had been furnished in the bail application. Since the charge-sheet had been filed, the investigative necessity for continued custody was substantially reduced; further, the applicant had been in custody since 15 July 2026 and the trial was likely to take additional time.

Balancing these circumstances, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of release on bail.

The applicant, Sahil Kumar Vagle, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation, 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.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.