Criminal antecedents alone do not justify continued detention after charge-sheet filing and completion of custodial interrogation.

The applicants—Setthi Vijay, Setthi Surya and Shashi Kumar—filed their first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail in Crime No. 377/2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 112(1)(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that, on 15 March 2026, the complainant discovered that her house lock had been broken and that silver ornaments, a silver ring, two silver toe-rings and ₹5,000 in cash had been stolen.

During investigation, technical evidence allegedly connected the applicants with the present theft and other thefts.

While in custody in another case, the applicants allegedly disclosed their involvement in the present offence along with other associates, following which they were formally arrested in this case.

The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated primarily on the basis of their memorandum statements, that they had been in custody since 29 April 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed, making further custodial interrogation unnecessary.

The State opposed bail on the grounds that the applicants were habitual offenders with several criminal antecedents and that the allegations were serious.

1. Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the alleged offences, criminal antecedents and prosecution’s assertion that they were habitual offenders?

2. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ period of custody, the absence of any further requirement for custodial interrogation, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified their release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant regular bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 112(1)(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The governing bail principles applied were the consideration of the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the necessity of further custodial interrogation, the period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of the trial being delayed, and the risk of misuse of liberty.

The Court balanced the seriousness of the allegations and the applicants’ criminal antecedents, relied upon by the State, against the circumstances favouring release.

It noted that the applicants had been in custody since 29 April 2026, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and that no further custodial interrogation was required.

The Court also considered that the applicants had already obtained bail in certain other cases and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted, while expressly refraining from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.

The applicants’ release was subjected to safeguards requiring their appearance before the trial court and prohibiting conduct that could delay or obstruct the trial.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicants not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings in the event of proclamation and non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

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