Regular bail granted considering absence of criminal antecedents and completion of investigation upon filing of charge-sheet.

The complainant alleged that while walking near village Pisegaon, three individuals assaulted one Durgesh Bandhe and forcibly robbed his mobile phone

The accused subsequently used the phone to impersonate the complainant’s daughter and demand Rs. 5,000 via blackmail

The applicant, Tirath Sonkar, was arrested on August 13, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 330/2025

The applicant's name did not appear in the FIR; he was implicated primarily through the memorandum statements of co-accused persons on allegations of purchasing stolen articles

Following the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant moved the High Court for regular bail

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of his incarceration

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail

The underlying offenses were registered under Sections 309(6) (robbery), 308(2) (extortion), 310(2) (receiving stolen property), and 238 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court also considered the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention without prior criminal antecedents may warrant the exercise of discretionary bail

The Court observed that the applicant was not named in the FIR and that no weapons or incriminating articles were recovered from his direct possession

It noted the applicant's contention that he was implicated solely on the basis of co-accused memorandum statements, which he argued were legally unsustainable, and that material witnesses had not supported the prosecution's case against him

While the State opposed bail citing the gravity of the offense and the applicant's alleged complicity surfaced during investigation, the Court weighed the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record and had already been in custody since August 13, 2025

Furthermore, since the charge-sheet had been filed and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary

The Court held that the applicant’s lack of antecedents and the stage of the proceedings justified bail

The release was made subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, mandatory attendance at all trial dates under threat of proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS, and compliance with personal appearance requirements during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS