Lack of incriminating recovery and parity justify bail under BNSS notwithstanding extensive criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Amjad, filed a first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was arrested on January 5, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 342/2024 at Police Station Panwasa, Ujjain, for allegedly planning a dacoity at a Punjab National Bank branch.

The prosecution alleged that during a police raid on October 10, 2024, six individuals were found with deadly weapons; four were caught, and two escaped.

The applicant was implicated based on the statements of co-accused made in police custody.

No incriminating material was recovered from the applicant’s possession.

While the State cited sixteen criminal antecedents, the applicant contended he had been acquitted in two, fined in one, and the rest were pending trial without any major convictions.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given that his implication was based on a co-accused's statement and no recovery was made from him.

2. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents constitute a sufficient bar to the grant of bail when parity is claimed with co-accused who have already been released.

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

It considered the provisions of Sections 310(4) and 310(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to dacoity and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court relied on the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Irfan and Imran had been granted bail under previous orders in M.Cr.C. No. 47557/2024 and M.Cr.C. No. 11385/2026.

The court weighed the socio-economic status of the applicant and the nature of his criminal antecedents against the necessity of continued incarceration.

The court found that the applicant’s involvement was premised on information provided by co-accused during custody rather than direct recovery of incriminating evidence.

It observed that the applicant's situation was comparable to, or better than, that of the co-accused who were already granted bail.

Although the State highlighted sixteen criminal antecedents, the court noted that many of these cases resulted in acquittals or fines, or remained pending, with no history of major convictions.

The court reasoned that since the trial would be prolonged and the applicant had a family to support, there was no immediate flight risk or evidence of potential witness tampering.

Consequently, the court determined that the interests of justice would be served by granting bail with stringent conditions to address the applicant's criminal history.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the same amount.

The court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant must not commit similar offenses, must not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses, and must mark his presence at the Panwasa Police Station on the first Saturday of every month until the conclusion of the trial.

Any breach of these conditions would allow the trial court to consider cancellation of bail.