Regular bail granted for theft where charge-sheet filed and complainant failed to identify accused.

The applicant, Mohammad Siraj, filed a first bail application following his arrest on January 28, 2026, for the alleged theft of a Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle on December 26, 2025

A complaint was registered at Police Station Bilha under Section 303(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) after the vehicle was reported missing from a petrol pump

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, as the complainant failed to recognize him during the evidence stage

It was further noted that no seizure was made from him and he had only one other criminal antecedent under the BNS

The State opposed the bail, citing that the charge-sheet had already been submitted

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering his period of incarceration and the progress of the trial?

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

It also considered Section 303(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which defines the punishment for theft

The court integrated procedural safeguards under Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the BNS/BNSS to ensure the applicant’s future attendance and to prevent the abuse of the liberty granted by bail

The Court balanced the gravity of the offense against the applicant's right to liberty during the trial. It observed that the applicant had been in judicial custody since January 28, 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with the investigation

The Court took note of the applicant's submission that the trial was at the evidence-recording stage and the complainant had not identified the accused

Furthermore, while the applicant had one criminal antecedent, the Court determined that the likely duration of the trial justified the grant of bail

To safeguard the judicial process, the Court imposed strict conditions, including personal bonds and mandatory attendance at specific trial stages

The holding directed the release of Mohammad Siraj upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: (i) no adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) mandatory presence on every date fixed by the trial court; and (iii) specific personal appearances for the framing of charges and recording of statements

The Court ordered that failure to comply with these conditions would allow the trial court to initiate proceedings for abuse of liberty