Grant of bail in house-breaking and theft cases despite criminal antecedents and ongoing trial.

The applicant, Suresh @ Surru Choudhary, was arrested on February 27, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 22/2026 at Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur

The prosecution alleges that the applicant and a co-accused committed a house theft involving golden and silver jewelry worth ₹4.20 Lakh and a mobile phone from the residence of Martin Khakha

Ornaments were allegedly recovered from the applicant's possession

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, while in judicial custody

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

2. Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents and the gravity of the offense provide sufficient grounds to deny bail during the pendency of the trial

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

The court considered Sections 305(a) [Theft in a dwelling house] and 331(4) [Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking] of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The court also referred to Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the expeditious conduct of proceedings during the examination of witnesses

The Court observed that while the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offense and three criminal antecedents, the applicant had not been convicted in any previous matters

The Court noted that the offense is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and the trial has already commenced with two prosecution witnesses (the complainant and seizure witness) already examined

The Court reasoned that since the veracity of the prosecution's claims and the applicant's complicity are matters for trial, and given the applicant’s socio-economic status and family responsibilities, there was no immediate risk of him fleeing justice or recidivism

It concluded that continued incarceration without a trial conclusion date would cause undue hardship, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to mitigate risks associated with his antecedents

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant appearing at every hearing, refraining from committing similar offenses, and not tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses

The Court further mandated compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding witness examination during the trial