Regular bail granted under BNSS despite criminal antecedent where implication rests on co-accused’s memorandum statement.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest in Crime No. 199/2025

The prosecution alleged that police, acting on secret information, seized hologram stickers, a punching machine, seven sacks of empty bottles, water jars, and a 200-liter drum from the possession of co-accused persons

The applicant was implicated in the matter solely based on the memorandum statement of the co-accused

The applicant has been in custody since December 1, 2025, has one criminal antecedent, and the charge-sheet has already been filed

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of his pretrial detention

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which grants the High Court the power to release an accused on bail

Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, which prescribes a maximum punishment of three years

Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNS/BNSS to establish conditions for the continued liberty of the applicant and the consequences of defaulting on trial appearances

The court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the specific nature of the evidence linking the applicant to the crime

It observed that the incriminating items were seized from co-accused persons and that the applicant's involvement was derived from a memorandum statement

Despite the existence of one criminal antecedent, the court noted that the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had already served over three months in jail

Since the maximum punishment for the primary excise offence is three years and the trial is expected to take significant time, the court reasoned that further incarceration was not warranted at this stage

The court imposed strict conditions, including a mandate that the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present and must appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements

The court held that any misuse of liberty or failure to appear would empower the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita