Regular bail granted for theft where charge-sheet was filed and applicant had no criminal antecedents.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 271/2025 registered at Police Station Tikrapara.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of 14/15.04.2025, unknown persons committed theft of copper wires valued at approximately Rs. 1,50,000/- from the house of the complainant, Subhash Sahu.

The applicant contended that he is a poor laborer, has no previous criminal antecedents, and that no stolen property was recovered from his possession.

The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the theft and the discovery of sufficient material during the investigation.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the duration of his pretrial detention.

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

The case involved substantive charges under Sections 331(4) (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night), 305 (Theft in dwelling house, etc.), and 3(5) (Joint liability/Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court also referenced Sections 209, 269, 84, and 351 of the BNSS regarding trial procedures and conditions for the continued liberty of the accused on bail.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—theft causing substantial loss—against the personal circumstances of the applicant.

It observed that the applicant had been in custody since 07.05.2025 and that the investigation was complete, with the charge-sheet already filed.

A critical factor in the court's reasoning was the absence of any previous criminal antecedents against the applicant.

Recognizing that the trial would likely take considerable time to conclude, the Court determined that prolonged detention without a prior criminal record was unwarranted.

Consequently, the Court found that the applicant met the criteria for regular bail, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure his presence during the trial and to prevent the abuse of liberty.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant's strict adherence to procedural requirements, including appearing for all court dates and not seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Court directed that any default in these conditions, or failure to appear after a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS, would entitle the trial court to initiate proceedings for breach of bail.