### Grant of Bail Due to Omission from FIR and Lack of Identification Parade Participation

The applicant, Aniket Meena, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

He was arrested on December 8, 2025, in connection with a robbery involving ₹20,00,000/- and a mobile phone.

The complainant alleged that four unidentified men on two motorcycles intercepted his scooter, assaulted him with a country-made pistol and a stick, and fled with the cash bag.

The applicant's name was not in the FIR but was added based on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

The defense contended that the applicant was at his shop during the incident, supported by a merchants' *panchanama*, and that the prosecution admitted his role was limited to planning, not execution; consequently, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was deemed necessary for him.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering his role was limited to "planning" and his name was omitted from the FIR.

Whether prolonged pre-trial detention justifies the exercise of judicial discretion for release on bail when the trial is unlikely to conclude soon.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC, governing the high court's power to grant bail.

The charges involved Sections 309(6) (Robbery/Dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) and 311 (Punishment for robbery) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court relied on the established legal principle that "prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty."

The court evaluated the applicant's involvement through the lens of the prosecution's own submission before the Trial Court, noting that the applicant was not present at the scene of the crime and his alleged role was restricted to assisting in the "planning of the offence".

Because he was not an active participant in the physical assault or robbery, the prosecution waived the identification parade (TIP).

The court noted the absence of the applicant's name in the FIR and that his implication rested solely on co-accused statements.

Balancing the nature of the allegations against the fact that the trial would not conclude in the near future, the court determined that the applicant, a permanent resident with no immediate flight risk, met the criteria for bail.

It held that without commenting on the merits, the facts and circumstances justified the benefit of bail.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, non-tampering of evidence, and a prohibition on leaving India without permission.