Regular bail denied to habitual offender with extensive criminal antecedents and past misuse of liberty.

The applicant, Vidhyadhar Das, was arrested on 03.01.2026 in connection with the theft of an Activa scooter belonging to the complainant, Neeta Singh, on 31.12.2025

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was identified through CCTV footage and was later apprehended near a petrol pump while in possession of the stolen vehicle

In his memorandum statement, the applicant admitted to the commission of the offence

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 303(2) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The State opposed the bail application by highlighting that the applicant is a habitual offender with 17 criminal antecedents involving theft, kidnapping, house-trespass, and assault across multiple states

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his criminal history and the evidence on record

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of regular bail

It applied Sections 303(2) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding the substantive offences

The Court relied on the legal principle established by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which held that a defendant’s prior criminal antecedents are a critical factor in determining whether to grant or cancel bail to prevent the misuse of liberty

The Court observed that there is significant prima facie evidence against the applicant, including CCTV identification and the actual recovery of the stolen scooter from his possession

The Court placed heavy emphasis on the applicant’s "habitual" criminal nature, noting 17 prior cases registered in Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan

It reasoned that the applicant had previously misused the liberty of bail granted to him in other matters

Integrating the facts with the doctrine in Deepak Yadav, the Court determined that the applicant's extensive history of recidivism and the nature of the current evidence rendered him unfit for regular bail at this stage

The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously

The application was dismissed