Regular bail granted absent FIR nomination, incriminating recovery, criminal antecedents, and with prolonged trial.

On 7 May 2026, a petrol-pump employee carrying ₹61,670, along with a mobile phone, account register, bag and motorcycle, was allegedly intercepted near Navgai Chowk by five persons riding two motorcycles.

The assailants allegedly had covered faces, assaulted the complainant, threatened him with a pistol-like object and robbed him.

During investigation, the Applicant’s memorandum statement allegedly disclosed his involvement in planning and executing the robbery with other associates.

Crime No. 108/2026 was registered at Police Station Darima, Ambikapur, for an offence under Section 309(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Applicant was arrested on 11 May 2026; investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the Applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offence under Section 309(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the Applicant’s custody, absence of criminal antecedents, non-identification in the FIR, lack of recovery and the likely delay in trial justified his release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the Applicant’s connection with the alleged offence, the possibility of recovery, criminal antecedents, period of custody, completion of investigation and the anticipated duration of trial.

The Court also imposed conditions to secure the Applicant’s presence, prevent adjournments when witnesses were present, and address misuse of bail.

The Court noted that the Applicant’s name was not mentioned in the FIR and that the alleged assailants had covered faces, creating an issue regarding his identification at the scene.

It further considered that no incriminating article, cash, weapon or stolen vehicle had been recovered from him, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that he had remained in custody since 11 May 2026.

Since the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, continued detention was not considered necessary, particularly as the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found the Applicant’s case fit for bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance on specified stages of the trial, and consequences for absence, misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.