Custodial detention is unwarranted where FIR is against unknown persons and no recovery from exclusive possession exists.

The applicants (a 19-year-old man and a woman) were arrested on 24.02.2026 in connection with Crime No. 85/2026 involving the theft of cash, jewelry, and documents from the house of complainant Sanjay Miri

The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons; however, the applicants were apprehended based on CCTV footage and witness statements regarding the use of a stolen Aadhaar card

Applicant No. 1 allegedly committed the theft and handed part of the property to Applicant No. 2

The applicants sought regular bail, contending that no property was recovered from their exclusive possession, they have no criminal history, and the trial would be lengthy

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of their custody

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), governing the High Court's power to grant bail

Sections 331(4) [Lurking house-trespass/house-breaking], 305(a) [Theft in dwelling house], and 238 [Causing disappearance of evidence] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

established principles of bail jurisprudence, specifically focusing on the non-likelihood of the accused absconding, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the nature of the trial as being triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class

The Court observed that the FIR did not originally name the applicants and noted the defense’s contention that there was no recovery of stolen property from the exclusive possession of the applicants

It weighed the gravity of the offence against the fact that the applicants had been in custody since 24.02.2026 and found no material evidence suggesting they would tamper with witnesses or abscond

Given that the case is triable by a Magistrate and the trial is expected to take considerable time, the Court reasoned that further custodial detention was not warranted, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure their participation in trial proceedings under Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS/BNS

The holding is conditioned upon the applicants attending all trial dates, not seeking unnecessary adjournments, and appearing for specific stages such as framing of charges and recording of statements

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty