Grant of bail for theft despite criminal antecedents where investigation is complete and trial is delayed.

The applicant filed a first bail application seeking regular bail following his arrest on October 6, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that unknown persons committed theft at a residence in Raipur, stealing gold and silver ornaments, a mobile phone, and cash.

The applicant was arrested based on a memorandum statement; subsequently, the police reported the recovery of gold and silver ornaments from his possession.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based solely on the co-accused's statement and claimed parity with other co-accused who were granted bail.

The State opposed the bail, citing the recovery of stolen articles and the applicant's three prior criminal antecedents of a similar nature.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite having criminal antecedents and recovered stolen property.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It also referenced substantive offences under Sections 331(3) (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking), 305 (Theft in dwelling house, etc.), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court balanced the gravity of the offence and criminal history against the procedural status of the case, specifically the filing of a charge-sheet and the duration of detention.

The Court weighed the seriousness of the allegations and the recovery of ornaments against the fact that the investigation was effectively complete, as evidenced by the filing of the charge-sheet.

While the State argued that the applicant was a habitual offender with three antecedents, the Court noted that these antecedents had been explained via a covering memo.

The Court reasoned that since the applicant had been in custody since October 2025, no further interrogation was required, and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the continued pretrial detention was not warranted.

The Court found no immediate necessity for further custody provided that stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant’s appearance and prevent the abuse of liberty.

The Court held that despite the recovery and antecedents, the completion of the charge-sheet and the period of detention justified release.

The applicant was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to specific conditions: an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence during trial dates, and personal presence during critical stages of the trial (framing of charges and Section 351 BNSS statements).

Non-compliance would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.