Regular Bail Granted Where Accused’s Implication Rests Solely on Co-Accused’s Memorandum Without Recovery of Stolen Articles.

The applicant filed a first bail application regarding an incident on September 9, 2025, where 120 units of TMT bars valued at approximately Rs. 1,80,000 were stolen from Central Railway TSS, Village Kanharpuri

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with six co-accused, committed the theft, specifically asserting that the applicant’s vehicle (Motor C.G.17 KK 2545) was used in the crime based on a memorandum statement of a co-accused

The applicant argued he was falsely implicated as a commercial vehicle owner, no stolen property was recovered from him, and he had been in custody since January 17, 2026

The State opposed bail, noting four criminal antecedents against the applicant

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and his period of incarceration.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

The substantive charges were under Sections 303(2) (theft) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

Procedural conditions for bail were governed by Section 269 of the BNS (non-appearance), Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 351 of the BNSS (accused's statement)

The court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the specific role of the applicant. It noted that the applicant’s name surfaced solely through a co-accused's memorandum statement, which carries limited evidentiary weight without corroboration

Crucially, the court observed that no stolen articles were seized from the applicant's possession, even though he owned the vehicle allegedly used in the transport of stolen goods

Despite the presence of four criminal antecedents, the court prioritized the facts that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the trial was expected to take a significant amount of time

The court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary provided that strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial

The High Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant on a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking adjournments during witness testimony, mandatory presence during key trial stages, and a warning that default would trigger proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS