Regular bail granted despite criminal antecedents upon filing of charge sheet in property-related offenses.

The applicant sought his first regular bail application following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 156/2025

The prosecution alleged that on August 1, 2024, the complainant’s motorcycle was stolen while he was resting at Kailashgupha

A written report was lodged on July 26, 2025, after the complainant’s unsuccessful attempts to trace the vehicle

During the investigation, the stolen property was recovered based on the memorandum statements of the applicant and a co-accused, and a charge sheet was subsequently filed

The applicant has been in custody since July 27, 2025

While the applicant has three criminal antecedents, he had been granted bail by the trial court in those previous matters

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of his criminal antecedents and the duration of his pretrial detention

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail

The substantive offenses were considered under Sections 303(2), 317(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Furthermore, the court integrated procedural safeguards and penalties for bail default as per Section 269 BNS (failure to appear), Section 84 BNSS (proclamation of absconding person), Section 209 BNS (failure to appear in response to proclamation), and Section 351 BNSS (recording of statements)

The Court assessed the application by balancing the gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had already been filed

While the State raised concerns regarding the applicant’s three criminal antecedents, the Court observed that the applicant had successfully obtained bail in all prior cases from the trial court

Taking into account the applicant’s incarceration since July 27, 2025, and the likelihood that the trial would not conclude in the near future, the Court found it fit to exercise its discretion in favor of the applicant

The Court emphasized that the liberty of the applicant could be protected through the imposition of stringent conditions to ensure his cooperation with the trial process

The holding was subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness examination, must be present at every hearing, and must specifically appear during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

Any violation of these conditions or failure to appear after a proclamation would allow the trial court to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS