Regular bail is warranted where the charge-sheet is filed, antecedents are absent, and co-accused have secured bail.

The applicant was arrested on 19 July 2026 in connection with Crime No. 420/2026 registered at Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 306, 331(4), 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, during patrolling at the J.S.W. Power Plant on 19 July 2026, the complainant and other security personnel noticed four persons allegedly committing theft.

The applicant was apprehended at the spot, and four bags containing 38 copper plates valued at approximately ₹2,00,000 were allegedly recovered.

The prosecution further alleged that the applicant disclosed the involvement of three co-accused persons and that the theft had been committed during the night shift on 18 July 2026.

The applicant denied the allegations, contending that he had completed his night duty, that the copper plates were not recovered from his possession, and that the seizure memo was prepared after several hours.

He also relied on the absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, the expected delay in trial, and the grant of bail to the co-accused.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant was involved in the theft of 38 copper plates worth approximately ₹2,00,000.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the period of detention, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the status of the investigation and charge-sheet, and parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The alleged offences were stated to arise under Sections 306, 331(4), 317(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegation that the applicant, in collusion with the co-accused, had stolen 38 copper plates worth approximately ₹2,00,000 from the power plant and had attempted to flee when noticed by the patrolling party.

However, against the seriousness of the allegations, the Court took into account that the applicant had remained in custody since 19 July 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The Court also considered that the co-accused persons, who were alleged to have fled from the spot, had been granted bail by the trial Court.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that continued detention of the applicant was not necessary and that he was entitled to bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with the consequences prescribed in the event of misuse of bail or non-appearance pursuant to proclamation.