Regular bail granted where recovered property lacks identification and investigation stands completed.

The case originated from a report filed by Dharmendra Shukla, a temple priest, alleging that on January 5, 2025, unknown persons stole offerings from the temple’s donation box

an FIR was registered at Police Station Shujalpur Mandi under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The applicants, Suraj and Sultan, both laborers, were arrested on January 12, 2026

During the investigation, the police recovered coins amounting to Rs. 290/- from Suraj and Rs. 230/- from Sultan

The investigation was completed, and a final report was submitted to the court

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the completion of the investigation and the nature of the evidence

Whether the existence of criminal antecedents without previous convictions is a sufficient ground to deny bail given the applicants' socio-economic status

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail

the substantive offences were considered under Sections 331(4) (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking) and 305(a) (Theft in any building, tent or vessel) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

procedural requirements of Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the CrPC) regarding the examination of witnesses during trial

The court examined the prosecution's case and noted that the primary evidence consisted of recovered coins that had not undergone identification during the investigation

The court found that since the final report had been submitted, there was no risk of the applicants tampering with evidence during the remainder of the proceedings

Regarding the State's objection concerning three criminal antecedents for each applicant, the court noted that the applicants had no prior convictions and the cases were still pending

Given their socio-economic status as laborers and their family responsibilities, the court determined there was no likelihood of recidivism or fleeing from justice

The court concluded that the veracity of the prosecution's claims and the complicity of the applicants were matters for trial, and continued incarceration was not justified for a non-heinous offence where the trial would take time to conclude

The court held that the lack of identification of the recovered property and the completion of the investigation weighed in favor of the applicants’ liberty

The applicants were ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with separate sureties of the same amount, subject to five specific conditions, including regular court attendance, refraining from committing similar offences, and not tampering with witnesses or evidence