Regular bail may be granted despite criminal antecedents when charge-sheet is filed and further custody is unnecessary.

The applicants—Setthi Vijay, Setthi Surya and Shashi Kumar—filed their first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 372/2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 112(1)(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that, on 15 March 2026, unknown persons broke into the complainant’s house and stole gold and silver ornaments and ₹15,000 in cash.

During investigation, technical evidence allegedly linked the applicants to the offence. After being apprehended in another case, the applicants allegedly disclosed in memorandum statements that they had committed the theft with other associates, and the stolen ornaments were subsequently seized by the Basantpur Police.

The applicants had been in custody since 29 April 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and they had obtained bail in some other criminal cases.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the gravity of the offence and the applicants’ criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody and the absence of any further need for custodial interrogation.

Whether the applicants’ alleged criminal antecedents and the nature and gravity of the accusations justified continued detention despite the completion of investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which governs the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The Court considered the established bail principles relating to the filing of the charge-sheet, the necessity of further custodial interrogation, the period of incarceration, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the risk indicated by the accused’s criminal antecedents.

The offences alleged were those punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 112(1)(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits, subject to conditions intended to secure the applicants’ presence and prevent misuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court treated the filing of the charge-sheet and the completion of the investigation as significant circumstances demonstrating that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

It also considered that the applicants had remained in custody since 29 April 2026, had already been granted bail in certain other cases, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the State relied on the applicants’ criminal antecedents and the gravity of the allegations, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted in the circumstances.

The bail order was made without commenting on the merits and was accompanied by strict attendance, non-adjournment and appearance conditions.

The applicants were required, inter alia, not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on scheduled dates, to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with proceedings arising from any failure to appear.

The order was passed without prejudice to the merits of the case.