Criminal antecedents do not bar bail where primary evidence is limited to a co-accused’s disclosure statement.

The applicant, Vishnu Verma, filed his first bail application in connection with Crime No. 214/2025 registered at P.S. Malawar for offences involving the theft of an exhaust fan and two spades (Favda) from the house of one Kailash.

The applicant was arrested on January 8, 2026, following a statement by co-accused Sandeep, who alleged he sold the stolen spades to the applicant for Rs. 400/-.

The State opposed the bail, citing 14 criminal antecedents against the applicant.

The applicant contended that he had been acquitted in several of those cases, that one was settled in Lok Adalat, and that no convictions had been recorded against him.

Investigation is complete, and the final report has been submitted.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his incarceration since January 2026 and the nature of the evidence against him.

2. Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents constitute a sufficient ground to deny bail where the primary evidence is a disclosure statement of a co-accused.

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

Substantive charges were brought under Sections 305(a), 331(4), and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The principle that the veracity of prosecution claims and the complicity of the accused are matters for trial, and that continued incarceration is unnecessary when there is no likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence, particularly in cases triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

The court observed that the applicant’s implication was based on information provided by a co-accused while in police custody.

While acknowledging the State’s concern regarding the applicant's 14 criminal antecedents, the court noted that the applicant had either been acquitted or the matters remained pending without any convictions.

The court reasoned that since the investigation was complete and the final report submitted, the applicant's socio-economic status as a laborer with family responsibilities minimized the risk of recidivism or absconding.

It further noted that the trial, being triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, would take time to conclude, and there were no compelling reasons to justify further judicial custody.

To mitigate the risk posed by the applicant's antecedents, the court imposed "stringent conditions," including a mandate that the applicant must mark his presence at P.S. Malawar on the first Saturday of every month until the conclusion of the trial.

The court held that the observations made were limited to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.