Regular bail granted where accusation rests on uncorroborated memorandum statements and disproportionately minimal recovery.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on March 16, 2026, in connection with an alleged theft and misappropriation of railway materials.

The prosecution alleged that railway materials worth approximately ₹2 crores were stolen from a project site on January 20, 2026.

Investigation subsequently revealed that the incident was likely internal misappropriation by a JCB operator (co-accused Tej Bahadur Patel) and that an account manager (co-accused Ankit Mishra) had fabricated the theft story to mislead the police.

The applicant was implicated via a memorandum statement of another co-accused, with the police recovering ₹1,000 from him, alleging he was involved in purchasing the stolen scrap.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the nature of the evidence and the duration of his pretrial detention?

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant bail.

Sections 316(5) (Criminal breach of trust), 317(2) & 317(3) (Handling stolen property), and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court also evaluated the evidentiary weight of memorandum statements and the principle that bail may be granted when the primary allegations are directed at co-accused and the recovery from the applicant is minimal.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s foundation was questionable, as witness statements contradicted the initial FIR regarding an "armed theft".

It noted that the applicant’s implication relied heavily on a co-accused's memorandum statement, which lacked independent corroboration.

The court emphasized that the recovery of ₹1,000 from the applicant was "minimal" and insignificant relative to the total alleged loss of ₹2 crores.

The court distinguished the applicant's role from the main accused, Tej Bahadur Patel, who was directly involved in the misappropriation.

Given that the applicant had been in jail since March 16, 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the court found the applicant entitled to bail to perform family duties, including his daughter's upcoming wedding.

The court held that the lack of direct evidence and the minimal recovery warranted release.

The grant of bail was made subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including mandatory attendance at all trial proceedings and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

If the applicant defaults or misuses the liberty, the trial court is empowered to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.