Charge-sheet filing, prolonged custody, and likely trial delay justify regular bail absent serious antecedents.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 183/2025 registered at Police Station Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(A) and 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, during the night of 29–30 April 2025, the complainant’s goat shed was breached and 30 goats, valued at approximately ₹1,00,000, were stolen.

On 3 May 2025, certain co-accused persons were allegedly apprehended while attempting to commit theft in a modified Innova vehicle. The applicant allegedly fled from the spot along with two co-accused persons after villagers detected the smell of goats and found an iron crowbar in the vehicle.

The applicant contended that he was innocent, had been falsely implicated on the basis of co-accused statements, and that the prosecution material did not prima facie establish his involvement.

He further submitted that he had only one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, in which he had already been granted bail, and that the trial would take time.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court considered the case diary and the rival submissions.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the nature of the allegations, the available prosecution material, his criminal antecedent, and the stage of the proceedings?

2. Whether bail should be granted considering that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had already been granted bail in his antecedent NDPS case, and the trial was likely to take time?

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 alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(A) and 112 of the BNS.

The Court relied on the established bail considerations of the prima facie nature of the accusation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in concluding the trial.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon.

The Court found that the applicant had only one criminal antecedent, arising under the NDPS Act, and that he had already been granted bail in that matter; the applicant had also furnished an explanation regarding the antecedent.

The Court further considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, thereby reducing the immediate need for continued custodial investigation, and that the applicant had remained in custody since 29 January 2026 as recorded in the Court’s reasoning.

Given the likelihood that the trial would take time, and without making a final determination on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to safeguards securing his presence and preventing misuse of bail.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on each date fixed by the trial court, to comply with proceedings concerning absence or 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.