Regular bail granted despite antecedents where no eyewitness existed, charge-sheet was filed, and trial would be prolonged.

The complainant reported that on 20 May 2025 he had parked his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10/BN/1522 under the Chuhchuhiyapara Overbridge near a vegetable shop after falling asleep, and discovered the motorcycle missing the following morning.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). During investigation, the applicant was arrested, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed.

The applicant had been in custody since 30 June 2026 and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The State opposed bail, relying on the material collected during investigation and the applicant’s three criminal antecedents under the IPC.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the alleged theft of the motorcycle.

2. Whether the absence of an eyewitness, the applicant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the existence and explanation of his criminal antecedents justified the grant of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the accusation, the evidentiary material available at the stage of bail, the absence of an eyewitness, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the applicant’s antecedents, without undertaking a detailed examination of the merits.

The Court noted that the prosecution alleged the applicant’s involvement in the theft of the motorcycle, but there was no eyewitness to the incident because the complainant had been asleep and discovered the theft only the next morning.

Although the State relied on investigation material and the applicant’s three IPC antecedents, the Court observed that only one antecedent case was pending and that the applicant had offered an explanation regarding it.

Since the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 30 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take time, the Court found continued detention unnecessary at that stage.

These factors, considered cumulatively and without expressing any opinion on the merits, justified the grant of regular bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.