Prolonged custody, trial delay, and parity with bailed co-accused justify bail despite criminal antecedents.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Lingaraj P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 173 of 2025, pending before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, Khurda.

He was alleged to have participated with co-accused persons in breaking open an ATM and committing theft during the night, attracting offences under Sections 331(4), 305, 313, 111(3), 317(4), 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The petitioner had earlier been granted bail in BLAPL No. 190 of 2026 subject to verification of his criminal antecedents, but the benefit was not extended after six antecedents were found against him.

He subsequently filed an affidavit disclosing eight criminal cases and produced documents showing acquittal in two of them, leaving six cases to his credit.

He had remained in custody since 1 March 2025, the trial had not concluded despite more than one and a half years having elapsed, and the FIR had been registered against unknown persons.

Several co-accused persons allegedly standing on a similar footing had already been granted bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases.

The Court considered settled bail principles, including assessment of the manner of implication, the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s antecedents, the period of custody, the progress of the trial, and parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The Court also considered the statutory offences alleged under Sections 331(4), 305, 313, 111(3), 317(4), 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s six remaining criminal antecedents but noted that two of the eight disclosed cases had resulted in acquittal.

Against this background, it considered that the petitioner had been in custody since 1 March 2025 and that the trial remained pending even after more than one and a half years.

The Court further found relevant that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and that several co-accused standing on a similar footing had already secured bail.

On an overall consideration of the manner of the petitioner’s implication, the available materials, the prolonged custody, the delay in trial, and parity with co-accused, the Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin of the case, subject to such further terms as that court might impose.

He was also directed to report before the jurisdictional police station once in a fortnight, preferably on a Sunday of each month between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, for six months from the date of actual release.

The Investigating Officer-in-Charge was directed not to detain him unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the stipulated time.

The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of.