Prior acquittals do not bar bail where investigation is complete and trial is likely to be delayed.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 357/2025, registered at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, for alleged offences under Sections 303(2), 112(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, during an investigation into stolen motorcycles, two motorcycles were seized from each applicant.

Their earlier bail application had been dismissed because they had not explained their criminal antecedents.

In the present application, they submitted that they had five similar antecedents and had been acquitted in each; they also relied on completion of the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, their custody since 23 September 2025, and the likely delay in concluding the trial.

The State opposed bail, relying on the recoveries.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the explained antecedents, completed investigation, period of custody, and anticipated delay in trial.

2. Whether the motorcycle recoveries from the applicants warranted refusing bail despite those circumstances.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the provision invoked for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 303(2), 112(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The order states no further statutory test or precedent; it assesses the applicants’ antecedents, completion of investigation, custody, and likely time to trial in deciding whether to grant bail.

The Court noted that although the applicants had five similar criminal antecedents, they had been acquitted in those cases.

It also took account of the completed investigation and filed charge-sheet, the applicants’ custody since 23 September 2025, and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude.

Despite the State’s reliance on the recoveries, the Court considered these circumstances sufficient to grant bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicants to remain available for police interrogation when required, not to induce, threaten, or promise anything to persons acquainted with the case, and not to act prejudicially to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s independent decision on the merits.