01Facts
The applicants were arrested on November 18, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 486/2025 registered at Police Station Mahasamund
¶ 1, 3The prosecution alleged that on November 17, 2025, the applicants committed theft at a Talkiz compound, stealing ₹80,000 from an almirah and a car bearing registration No. CG-06-GU-9990
¶ 2The applicants moved for regular bail, arguing they were falsely implicated, that the recovery of the vehicle was doubtful, and that they had been in custody for several months
¶ 3The State opposed the bail, noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed
¶ 402Issues
i.Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given their period of incarceration and the status of the investigation
¶ 1, 603Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail
¶ 1Sections 331(4) (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking), 305(a) (Theft in dwelling house, etc.), and 3(5) (Joint liability/Common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
¶ 1Section 269 of the BNS regarding non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant and Section 209 of the BNS regarding failure to appear in court after being released on bail/bond
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483Section 84Section 351
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 3Section 209Section 269Section 305Section 331
04Reasoning
The Court scrutinized the facts and circumstances, noting that while both applicants had one prior criminal antecedent, these had been adequately disclosed and explained in the application
¶ 3, 6The Court observed that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court
¶ 6the applicants had been in jail since November 18, 2025, and the trial was expected to consume significant time
¶ 6Balancing the applicants' right to liberty against the nature of the offenses, the Court concluded that continued pretrial detention was not warranted, provided that the integrity of the trial process was maintained through stringent bail conditions, including mandatory attendance at key stages of the proceedings under Section 351 of the BNSS
¶ 6, 705Holding
The High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicants, Santosh Bansod and Manish Bansod, upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each
¶ 7The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicants must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must attend all court dates personally or through counsel, and must appear in person for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS
¶ 7Violation of these conditions allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail
¶ 7Original Court PDF
SANTOSH BANSODvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
