Charge-sheet filing and prolonged incarceration justify regular bail despite the accused's extensive criminal antecedents.

On the night of November 16, 2025, a Royal Enfield motorcycle was stolen from the complainant’s residence in Village Dhodhapur

Following an informer’s tip regarding an attempt to sell the vehicle, the police apprehended the applicant, Shiva Rajput, who allegedly confessed to the theft in a memorandum statement

The motorcycle was recovered from the applicant’s possession with a modified number plate

The applicant was arrested on December 12, 2025, for offences under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 39/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act

The applicant sought regular bail, noting that the charge-sheet had been filed and questioning the evidentiary value of the memorandum statement

The State opposed bail, citing eight criminal antecedents, five of which are of a similar nature

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of his criminal antecedents and the recovery of stolen property

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

It considered the substantive offence of theft under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Court referred to the evidentiary principle under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which limits the admissibility of statements made by an accused in custody to the discovery of a fact

The Court also considered the impact of criminal antecedents and the stage of the trial on the discretionary power to grant bail

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the procedural status of the case.

While the prosecution highlighted the applicant’s recovery of the motorcycle and his status as a habitual offender with eight prior cases, the Court weighed this against the applicant's duration of incarceration since December 12, 2025

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been submitted to the competent court

Reasoning that the trial's conclusion would likely take significant time, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary despite the applicant's criminal history

The Court emphasized that the memorandum statement’s validity as substantive evidence is a matter to be established during the trial

The holding clarified that the completion of the investigation (filing of the charge-sheet) and the length of custody outweighed the concerns regarding criminal antecedents in this specific instance

The release is subject to stringent conditions, including an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, mandatory appearance on all trial dates, and the threat of bail cancellation under Section 209 of the BNS for non-compliance with proclamations