Lack of trial progress despite directions for expedition justifies bail in a second application.

The applicant was arrested on July 4, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 208/2025 registered at Police Station Aamanaka.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant tampered with an IDBI Bank ATM machine using aluminum strips to prevent legitimate withdrawals by customers, subsequently stealing the funds himself.

Following a written complaint by the Branch Manager, the applicant was apprehended, and incriminating items were seized.

The applicant's first bail application (MCRC No. 8337/2025) was rejected on merits on October 27, 2025, with a direction for an expedited trial.

Charges were subsequently framed on January 5, 2026; however, no prosecution witnesses were examined following the framing of charges.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in a second application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the lack of progress in the trial and the duration of pre-trial detention.

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

The applicant was charged under Sections 305 (theft) and 331(4) (lurking house-trespass or house-breaking) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Procedural mandates under Section 269 of the BNS (regarding attendance) and Section 351 of the BNSS (recording of statements) as conditions for the continued liberty of the accused.

While the State opposed bail citing the "nature and gravity" of the crime and the recovery of aluminum strips, the Court focused on the procedural delay since the rejection of the first bail application.

It noted that despite the previous order to conclude the trial expeditiously, no prosecution witnesses had been examined in the months following the framing of charges on January 5, 2026.

The Court determined that the applicant's incarceration since July 4, 2025, coupled with the stagnant status of the trial, constituted sufficient grounds to grant bail, notwithstanding the previous rejection on merits.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during evidence stages, must attend every hearing personally or through counsel (subject to Section 269 BNS), and must be present for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS.

Violation of these terms would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.