Regular bail warranted where investigation is complete and evidence is primarily documentary or recovery-based.

The complainant, Dhaniram Devangan, reported a house-breaking and theft of gold/silver ornaments and cash occurring on 07.11.2025

Investigation led to the arrest of co-accused Yogesh Sahu, whose memorandum statement implicated applicant Anil Kale (a goldsmith) for purchasing stolen items for Rs. 65,000 and applicant Sameer Chauhan for direct involvement

Authorities recovered melted gold, silver, and melting tools from Kale

The applicants were charged under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

Both applicants remained in judicial custody since December 2025 and January 2026, respectively, and a charge sheet has been filed

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the completion of the investigation and the nature of the evidence

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

The substantive offenses were considered under Sections 331(4) (house-breaking), 305(A) (theft), 317(2) (receiving stolen property), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Procedural safeguards regarding the conduct of the trial were governed by Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS

The Court noted that while the applicants were implicated via memorandum statements and recovery of incriminating articles (specifically from Anil Kale), the evidence against them is primarily documentary and the physical recoveries have already been completed

The Court balanced the gravity of the charges against the fact that the charge sheet had already been filed and the trial was expected to consume considerable time

It further considered the duration of the applicants’ incarceration (approximately two to three months) and specific personal hardships, such as the medical condition of Anil Kale’s wife

Consequently, the Court determined that further pretrial detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure trial participation

The holding was conditioned upon the applicants: (i) not seeking adjournments during witness testimony; (ii) appearing personally on all fixed dates; and (iii) strictly complying with Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS regarding court attendance and trial procedures

Violation of these conditions permits the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty