Regular bail granted under BNSS considering charge-sheet filing and trial delay despite criminal antecedents.

The applicants, Tikeshwar Yadu and Yogesh Yadu, filed a First Bail Application following their arrest in connection with Crime No. 90/2025

The prosecution alleged that on February 3, 2025, the complainant’s motorcycle (registration No. CG-04-DG-8452) was stolen from his field, leading to a report against unknown persons on February 6, 2025

The applicants were arrested on December 6, 2025

It was noted that the applicants have four criminal antecedents, three of which have been disposed of

The investigation is complete, and a charge-sheet has been filed

Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the filing of the charge-sheet and their duration of custody

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant regular bail

Sections 303(2) (theft), 112(2), and 3(5) (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Section 269 (non-attendance), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 (failure to appear), and Section 351 (evidence in presence of accused) of the BNSS and BNS

The court evaluated the nature and gravity of the allegations alongside the applicants' period of incarceration, noting they had been in jail since December 6, 2025

Although the State opposed bail citing four criminal antecedents, the court observed that three of those cases had already been disposed of, mitigating the weight of the criminal history

The court emphasized that the charge-sheet had already been filed, indicating that the primary stage of investigation was over, and acknowledged that the trial would likely take a considerable amount of time to reach a conclusion

Consequently, the court found it fit to exercise its discretion in favor of the applicants' liberty, provided that strict conditions were imposed to ensure their participation in the trial and to prevent the abuse of the bail privilege

The holding was contingent upon the applicants furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial court

The court imposed specific conditions, including a mandate that the applicants shall not seek adjournments during the evidence stage, must appear personally on specific trial milestones (framing of charges, recording of statements), and warned that any default would be treated as an abuse of liberty