Regular bail granted upon filing of charge-sheet notwithstanding applicant’s single criminal antecedent.

On April 3, 2025, a complainant reported his motorcycle stolen from a medical store in Bagbahara

During the investigation, the police apprehended co-accused Sunil Chandrakar for attempting to sell a stolen motorcycle; his memorandum statement subsequently implicated the applicant, Tapan Singh, in the theft

The applicant was arrested on December 16, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 91/2025

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed, noting he had been in custody for nearly four months and had only one prior criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the completion of the investigation and his period of incarceration

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides the High Court with the authority to grant bail

The applicant was charged under Sections 303(2) (punishment for theft), 316 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 238(3) (concealing property) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Furthermore, the court referenced procedural safeguards and penalties for bail default under Section 269 (non-appearance), Section 84 (proclamation for absconding), and Section 209 (failure to appear) of the BNSS/BNS framework

The court weighed the gravity of the motorcycle theft allegations against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation had concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet, thereby reducing the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence

While the State opposed bail due to the applicant's single criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, the court determined that this factor did not outweigh the fact that the applicant had been in jail since December 16, 2025, and that the trial would likely be protracted

The court reasoned that the nature of the allegations and the circumstances justified the exercise of discretion in favor of the applicant’s liberty, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure trial attendance

The court held that the applicant's continued detention was unnecessary given the completion of the charge-sheet and the anticipated duration of the trial

The release is subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during evidence, must appear at all critical trial stages (charge framing and Section 351 BNSS statements), and faces immediate proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS/BNSS in the event of default or misuse of liberty