Regular bail granted where complainant fails to identify accused and prosecution relies on inconsistent circumstantial evidence.

On 01.12.2024, Smt. Sangita Sharma (PW-1) lodged an FIR (Crime No. 263/2024) alleging the theft of a silver crown from the deity at Shani Sheetla Temple, Raipur, occurring on 29.11.2024.

The FIR was registered against an "unknown" person.

The applicant was initially arrested on 01.12.2024 in connection with a separate matter (Crime No. 300/2024).

Based on a memorandum statement recorded while in custody for the separate offense, the applicant was formally arrested in the present case on 20.12.2024 via a production warrant.

During trial proceedings, the complainant (PW-1) testified that she had never seen the applicant and stated that the person captured in CCTV footage did not match the applicant.

The applicant has one criminal antecedent under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) for which he was previously granted bail.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the evidentiary record and the duration of his pretrial detention.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the authority to grant regular bail.

The substantive offense was registered under Section 305(d) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court cited procedural safeguards and conditions for bail under the BNSS, including Section 269 (regarding the presence of the accused), Section 84 (proclamation for absconding persons), Section 209 (non-appearance after proclamation), and Section 351 (recording of statement of the accused).

The Court analyzed the application by weighing the nature of the evidence against the period of incarceration. It observed that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the star prosecution witness/complainant (PW-1) failed to identify the applicant during cross-examination and explicitly stated that the applicant was not the individual seen in the CCTV footage.

The Court reasoned that since the applicant had been in jail since 20.12.2024 and the trial was unlikely to conclude imminently, further detention was unnecessary.

Regarding the applicant’s criminal history, the Court noted that his single antecedent did not preclude bail, as he had already been granted bail in that specific matter by the trial court.

The Court ordered the release of Gaukaran Nishad upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

This relief was made subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness presence, must attend all court dates personally or through counsel, and must appear for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.