Grant of regular bail in theft case citing prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress.

The applicant, Dheeraj Sharma, sought a second regular bail application following the rejection of his first application (MCRC No. 8627/2025) on October 31, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that between June 22 and June 25, 2025, while the complainant was away, the applicant stayed at the complainant's house. Subsequently, four gold biscuits (100g each), two gold rings, and ₹3,40,000 were found missing from almirahs.

Investigation led to the recovery of stolen items from co-accused Rizwan Ali and ₹4,20,000 from one Rahul Dalmia, who claimed the applicant paid him the sum for purchases.

The applicant was arrested on August 11, 2025, and charged under Sections 331(4), 305, 238, 317(5), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the slow progress of the trial and his period of incarceration.

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

The court balanced the gravity of the offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—specifically provisions regarding theft and criminal breach of trust—against the fundamental principle of expeditious trial and the lack of the accused's criminal history.

The Court noted that although the first bail application was rejected on merits with a direction for an expeditious trial, the prosecution had only examined one witness out of twenty-one in the intervening period.

While the State argued that the applicant’s presence at the crime scene and the financial nexus through Rahul Dalmia established a prima facie case, the Court emphasized that the applicant had been in custody since August 11, 2025, and possessed no prior criminal record.

The High Court determined that the combination of prolonged incarceration and the unlikely conclusion of the trial in the near future outweighed the State’s concerns regarding the gravity of the offence and potential witness tapering.

The Court ordered the applicant's release on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to stringent conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence at every hearing unless excused; and (iii) strict compliance with Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS regarding non-appearance and misuse of liberty.

The trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with these conditions.