Extensive similar criminal antecedents indicating habitual offending justify denial of regular bail.

The applicants, Harsh Sidar @ Bittu and Gulshan Bareth, were arrested in connection with Crime No. 182/2026 registered at Police Station Malkharauda, District Sakti, for offences under Sections 303(2), 324(3), 112 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the complainant’s Brezza car, parked outside his shop, was found with its glass broken and its jack, valued at approximately ₹8,000, missing. The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons. During investigation, accused Harsh Sidar allegedly disclosed that he, Gulshan Bareth and other co-accused had stolen a jack from a vehicle at Village Kalmi; the stolen jack was subsequently seized pursuant to the disclosure.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that they had been implicated on suspicion, that the offence was triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, that the maximum punishment was up to three years, and that no further custodial interrogation was required.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the material collected during investigation and the applicants’ 11 criminal antecedents, several involving similar property offences.

Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation.

Whether the applicants’ alleged recovery of stolen property and their criminal antecedents, including 11 antecedents and rejection of bail in 9 cases, justified denial of bail despite the alleged offences being triable by the Magistrate and carrying punishment of up to three years.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the allegations under Sections 303(2), 324(3), 112 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In deciding bail, the Court assessed the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the alleged recovery of stolen property, and the applicants’ criminal antecedents, particularly their repeated involvement in similar offences.

The order does not cite any judicial precedent.

The Court found that the prosecution had placed material connecting the applicants with the alleged theft, including the disclosure attributed to Harsh Sidar and the consequent seizure of the stolen jack.

Although the applicants relied on the initial registration against unknown persons, the limited punishment, the period of custody and the absence of any need for further custodial interrogation, the Court treated these considerations as outweighed by the applicants’ antecedents. Their 11 criminal cases, several of a similar nature, and the rejection of bail in 9 cases were viewed as demonstrating repeated involvement in property offences and characterising them as habitual offenders.

On the cumulative assessment of the investigative material, alleged recovery, nature of the offence and antecedents, the Court held that the applicants did not present a fit case for regular bail.

The trial court was permitted to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.