Languishing in jail and acquittal in previous criminal antecedents justify grant of regular bail.

The applicant was arrested on 29.07.2025 in connection with Crime No. 203/2025 for allegedly trespassing into the house of Ankur Kumar Gupta between 24.07.2025 and 25.07.2025 and stealing ₹15,000 cash and utensils worth ₹10,000

Following the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant moved the High Court for regular bail

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the case rests on weak circumstantial evidence, and that he has already been acquitted in two of his three previous criminal cases

The State opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offence and the applicant's status as a habitual offender

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration, and his criminal antecedents

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

It also considered the substantive offences under Sections 331(4) (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night) and 305(A) (Theft in dwelling house, etc.) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

Regarding the conditions of bail, the Court invoked Section 269 of the BNS for non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant, Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for persons absconding, and Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of the accused's statement

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—specifically house trespass and theft during night hours—against the procedural status of the case and the applicant's personal circumstances

It noted that the applicant had been in custody since 29.07.2025 (nearly ten months) and that the investigation was complete, evidenced by the filing of the charge-sheet

Although the State highlighted three previous criminal antecedents, the Court observed that the applicant had already been acquitted in two of those matters

Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time to conclude, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was not warranted

The holding is conditioned upon the applicant’s strict compliance with procedural requirements, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory attendance at all trial stages (charges, evidence, and statement recording), and the stipulation that any default or failure to appear after a proclamation would result in proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS