Regular bail granted after investigation, with no criminal antecedents and trial likely to be protracted.

The applicant, Sitaram Pal, was arrested on 16 June 2026 in connection with Crime No. 158/2026 registered at Police Station Silwani, District Raisen, for alleged offences under Sections 316(2), 316(3), 316(5), 318(3), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 23 of the M.P. Agricultural Warehouse Act, and Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The prosecution alleged that, during verification of stock at Sarvodaya Warehouse, Neegri, Silwani, 1,760 gunny bags containing Moong were found, and that Arpit Jain was operating the warehouse

The applicant was allegedly working as a labourer at the warehouse and had shifted 100 gunny bags of Moong at the instructions of co-accused Arpit Jain. Those 100 bags were recovered and seized at the applicant’s instance

The applicant claimed that he had cooperated with the investigation, that the relevant seizure had been effected, and that the final report had been filed. He further submitted that the trial would take considerable time

A similarly placed co-accused, Nafeez, had already been granted bail by the trial court

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the stage of the proceedings?

Whether the applicant’s custodial detention was necessary where the investigation was complete, the final report had been submitted, the alleged recovery had been made, and the trial was likely to take time?

Whether bail could be granted subject to conditions safeguarding the attendance of the applicant and preventing interference with witnesses or evidence?

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

It considered the established principle that bail is to be assessed on the overall circumstances of the case, including the prima facie nature of the accusation, the applicant’s role, the stage of investigation, the likelihood of the trial being delayed, the possibility of absconding, criminal antecedents, and the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses

The Court also relied on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, cited by the applicant, reflecting the principle that pre-trial detention should not operate as punishment and that the necessity of continued custody must be assessed in light of the purposes of bail

Bail was made subject to attendance, non-recidivism, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and compliance with the applicable provisions concerning examination of witnesses in attendance under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Court found prima facie substance in the applicant’s submissions that he was merely a labourer at the warehouse and that the principal role was attributed to Arpit Jain, the warehouse operator

The alleged 100 gunny bags had already been recovered and seized at the applicant’s instance, the investigation had concluded, and the final report had been filed; consequently, further custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary

The Court also noted that the applicant had been in custody since 16 June 2026, that the trial would take time, and that a similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail

His age, status as a labourer, responsibility for a dependent family, absence of criminal antecedents, and lack of any apparent likelihood of absconding, reoffending, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses weighed in favour of release

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits, the Court held that there was no compelling reason to continue the applicant’s incarceration

The bail was subject to conditions requiring his presence on every date of hearing, abstention from similar offences, non-inducement or intimidation of persons acquainted with the facts, non-tampering with evidence, non-allurement or threatening of witnesses, and compliance with the provisions concerning examination of witnesses in attendance

The order was to remain effective until conclusion of the trial, with liberty to the trial court to consider cancellation of bail on merits in the event of breach of any bail condition