Grant of bail based on memorandum statement despite significant criminal antecedents and ongoing trial delays.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application seeking regular bail following his arrest on February 17, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of February 11-12, 2025, the applicant and co-accused entered a shop belonging to Nitin Verma and stole articles and ₹10,000 cash.

Consequently, Crime No. 72/2025 was registered at Police Station Sirgitti.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based solely on a memorandum statement, while the State opposed bail citing nine previous criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and his criminal history.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

It considered Sections 331(4) (house-trespass/house-breaking) and 305 (theft in dwelling house, etc.) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court also referenced Section 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 (non-appearance in response to a proclamation), and Section 351 (examination of accused) of the BNSS and BNS to set bail conditions.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the quality of the evidence.

It noted that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the applicant was implicated primarily via a memorandum statement.

While the State highlighted nine criminal antecedents, the Court observed that the applicant was already on bail in two of those cases and characterized others as "old and stale".

Given that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had been in custody for over a year (since February 17, 2025), and the trial was expected to take a considerable period, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted.

The holding answered the issue in the affirmative, granting relief subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear on all trial dates, and must be present specifically for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of his statement.

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