Pending charge-sheet, prolonged custody, and stale antecedents justified granting regular bail.

The applicants, Pawan Patidar and Ramsingh Ninama, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 193/2026 registered at Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, for offences under Sections 305, 331(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that unknown persons entered a wine shop and stole cash amounting to ₹7,05,580 and D.V.R. liquor. The applicants were subsequently arrested during investigation on the basis of memorandum statements.

The applicants contended that they were innocent, had been implicated solely on the basis of co-accused persons’ memorandum statements, had remained in custody since 29.06.2026, and that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

It was further submitted that Pawan Patidar had one criminal antecedent, while Ramsingh Ninama had none, and that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail by referring to the applicants’ alleged criminal antecedents, including four older cases and one case from 2025, and characterized them as habitual offenders.

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

It also considered the alleged offences under Sections 305, 331(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The governing bail principles applied were consideration of the nature of the allegations, the period of custody, the stage of investigation, the status of the charge-sheet, the likely duration of trial, and the relevance and age of criminal antecedents.

The Court considered the nature of the alleged theft, the applicants’ custody since 29.06.2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

Although the State relied on the applicants’ criminal antecedents, the Court found that the antecedents were old and stale. Balancing these circumstances against the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court held that continued incarceration was not justified at that stage.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case and found the applicants entitled to bail subject to stringent conditions.

The applicants were required, inter alia, not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court on each date either personally or through counsel, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order also provided for consequences in the event of misuse of bail, non-appearance, or failure to comply with proclamation proceedings.