Regular bail granted despite criminal antecedents after charge-sheet filing and completion of custodial interrogation.

The applicants—Setthi Vijay, Setthi Surya and Shashi Kumar—were arrested in connection with Crime No. 371/2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, during a marriage ceremony on 14 March 2026, the complainant had parked his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle outside the marriage house at Ayodhya Vihar, Bahtarai, Sarkanda, and discovered it missing the next morning. The motorcycle was alleged to have been stolen by an unknown person.

During investigation, the applicants’ involvement was allegedly discovered; they were arrested on 29 April 2026 and remanded to judicial custody.

The applicants argued that they had been falsely implicated primarily on the basis of memorandum statements, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that no further custodial interrogation was necessary. They also relied on the fact that they had been granted bail in certain other cases, notwithstanding seven criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail on the grounds that the applicants were habitual offenders, had several criminal antecedents, and that property worth approximately ₹3,00,000 had been recovered from them.

Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the alleged offence, criminal antecedents and recovery attributed to them?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, completion of the applicants’ custodial interrogation and the anticipated delay in trial justified further detention?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and detained in custody.

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

The Court applied the bail principle that continued incarceration is not warranted where investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required, and the trial is likely to take considerable time, subject to consideration of the nature of the allegations and the accused’s antecedents.

Bail was granted subject to conditions securing the applicants’ attendance, preventing unnecessary adjournments and regulating the consequences of misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegations, the applicants’ criminal antecedents and the alleged recovery, but considered that the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Since the applicants had remained in custody from 29 April 2026 and no further custodial interrogation was required, their continued detention was not considered necessary for investigation.

The Court also took into account that the applicants had secured bail in some other cases and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court held that the balance of circumstances favoured release on bail.

The High Court directed that Setthi Vijay, Setthi Surya and Shashi Kumar be released in connection with Crime No. 371/2026 upon furnishing personal bonds with two local sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to appear personally on specified procedural dates, and to comply with the consequences prescribed in case of absence or misuse of bail.

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