Prolonged custody, completed investigation, and likely trial delay justified granting bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 63/2026 registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(e) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that unknown persons broke open the locks and shutter of a Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank branch, stole bank equipment and locks valued at approximately ₹65,000, and damaged various security and office articles.

The applicant contended that only five old locks and an iron chain had been seized pursuant to his memorandum, that the articles were ordinary and not identifiable as belonging to the bank, and that he had already been granted bail in another crime arising from the same memorandum.

The applicant had been in custody since 29 March 2026; the charge-sheet had been filed, and the case was triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The decision was guided by established bail considerations, including the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the period of custody, the stage and likely duration of the trial, the nature of the evidence, and the possibility of securing the accused’s presence through conditions.

The Court also considered the fact that the applicant had already been granted bail in another crime arising from the same memorandum.

The Court considered the case diary and the submissions of both parties.

Although the prosecution relied on the seizure of broken locks and an iron chain at the applicant’s instance, the Court took into account that the seized articles were ordinary items, the applicant had been in custody since 29 March 2026, the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, and the case was triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

The Court further treated the applicant’s prior grant of bail in a connected offence arising from the same memorandum and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time as relevant circumstances favouring release.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, it concluded that the case was fit for grant of bail.

The applicant, Mohammad Araslan, was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation and non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

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