Grant of Regular Bail in Robbery Case Due to Low Recovery and Lack of Criminal Antecedents

The applicants, Nanu Pando and Dheersai Yadav @ Chhottu, were arrested on 06.03.2026 in connection with Crime No. 50/2026 at Police Station Bango.

The prosecution alleged that on 05.03.2026, the applicants intercepted a delivery vehicle, assaulted the driver, and snatched a bag containing ₹3,000/- from the complainant, Badrinath Agrawal.

Following interrogation and memorandum statements, ₹500/- was recovered from each applicant.

The applicants sought regular bail, arguing false implication, lack of criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the offense and the duration of their incarceration.

The Court considered the provisions of Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC), regarding the discretionary power to grant regular bail.

Substantively, the case involved Sections 126(2) (wrongful restraint) and 309(6) (robbery/extortion with hurt) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court’s reasoning was guided by established bail jurisprudence: evaluating the gravity of the offense, the presence or absence of criminal antecedents, the status of the investigation (filing of the charge-sheet), and the likelihood of the trial’s timely conclusion.

The Court balanced the gravity of the robbery allegations against several mitigating factors.

It noted that while the State opposed bail due to the seriousness of the crime, the investigation had progressed significantly with the filing of the charge-sheet.

The Court observed that only a small portion of the allegedly looted amount (₹500/- each) was recovered from the applicants.

Critically, the Court factored in that the applicants had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since 06.03.2026.

Given that the trial was likely to be protracted, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted.

The holding was based on the period of detention, absence of criminal history, and the filing of the charge-sheet.

Relief was granted subject to the execution of personal bonds and two sureties each, with strict conditions: the applicants must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear for all trial stages (charges, evidence, and Section 351 BNSS statements), and must comply with protocols to prevent the abuse of liberty.

Failure to comply would authorize the trial court to proceed under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS.