Regular Bail Granted for Vehicle Theft Despite Criminal Antecedents Following Charge-Sheet Filing and Prolonged Custody

The applicant, Pratik Soni, was arrested on August 31, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 178/2025.

The prosecution alleged that an unknown person committed theft of an Activa vehicle from a parking area.

Following a missing report and subsequent investigation, the applicant was implicated and arrested based on the memorandum statement of a co-accused.

The applicant sought regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, no incriminating articles were seized from him, and the trial would be prolonged.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant's three prior criminal antecedents and his status as a habitual offender.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite having criminal antecedents, considering the nature of the evidence and the period of detention?

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant bail.

The substantive charge was under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which pertains to the punishment for theft.

The court also referenced procedural compliance under Sections 269 (non-attendance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (recording of statement) of the BNSS to impose conditional liberty.

The Court weighed the State's objection regarding the applicant’s three criminal antecedents against the specific circumstances of the current case.

It noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning the investigation was complete.

The Court observed that the applicant had been in judicial custody since August 31, 2025, and that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take significant time.

Despite the applicant’s history as a "habitual offender" alleged by the State, the Court determined that the period of detention already undergone and the current stage of the proceedings justified the grant of bail, provided strict conditions were met to ensure the applicant’s presence during trial.

The holding is subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must be present at every hearing (unless excused), and must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements.

Failure to comply would authorize the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.