Prolonged custody, clean antecedents, and a slow trial justified granting bail.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 80/2025 registered at Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, for offences under Sections 305(a), 331(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, during the night of 16–17 February 2025, unknown persons broke open the locks of the complainant’s sister’s house and almirah and stole gold and silver ornaments and approximately ₹20,000–₹25,000 in cash, valued in total at about ₹2,50,000–₹3,00,000.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, that investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, and that no direct or incriminating material connected him with the alleged offence.

He had been in custody since 17 March 2025, had no criminal antecedents, and had already been granted bail in two other cases by the High Court on 20 August 2026.

The trial involved approximately seven to eight prosecution witnesses, of whom only one had been examined when the application was considered.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the circumstances of the case?

2. Whether the applicant’s prolonged custody, absence of criminal antecedents, completion of investigation, and slow progress of trial justified release on bail subject to conditions?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were under Sections 305(a), 331(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.

In exercising its bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the applicant’s period of custody, the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents, the existence or otherwise of prima facie incriminating material, the applicant’s prior grant of bail in connected matters, and the likely duration of the trial.

No judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 17 March 2025, the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, and no previous criminal antecedents were reported.

The Court also took note that the applicant had already been granted bail in two other matters and that, out of seven to eight prosecution witnesses, only one had been examined, indicating that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, these circumstances were considered sufficient to establish that the applicant’s continued detention was not necessary at that stage.

The Court therefore treated the case as fit for grant of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, subject to safeguards securing the applicant’s attendance and preventing delay or misuse of liberty.

The Court directed that the applicant be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on each date either personally or through counsel, to comply with proceedings arising from non-appearance or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.