### Grant of Bail for Alleged Robbery Where Custodial Interrogation is No Longer Required and No Criminal Antecedents Exist

The applicant, Shivam, filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 59/2026 registered at Police Station Neelganga.

The prosecution alleges that on January 25, 2026, the complainant was intercepted at a parking lot near Harifatak Bridge by a group of individuals who demanded money, assaulted him, and snatched ₹3,500 at knifepoint.

The applicant was arrested on February 6, 2026, based on statements from a co-accused, and has remained in judicial custody since then.

Defense counsel contended that the incident was a minor altercation over parking fees and that robbery charges were added to aggravate the case.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the accusation and the duration of his custody.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is necessary for further investigation or to prevent tampering with evidence.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

It also considered the substantive offences defined under Sections 309(4) (Robbery) and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court relied on settled principles of criminal jurisprudence which mandate assessing the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the potential for recidivism, the socio-economic status of the applicant, and whether the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).

The court observed that the investigation regarding the applicant is almost complete and further custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

While the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offence, it conceded that the 19-year-old applicant has no prior criminal record.

The court noted that only ₹100 was recovered from the applicant, lending some prima facie merit to the defense contention that the allegations might be exaggerated.

Given the applicant's young age, lack of criminal antecedents, and family responsibilities, the court found no evidence of a risk of flight or witness tampering.

Since the trial is expected to take time and the offence is triable by a JMFC, the court determined that continued incarceration served no compelling purpose.

The bail is subject to conditions including regular appearance before the trial court, refraining from committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and do not reflect on the merits of the final trial.