Regular bail warranted where no eyewitness exists, charge-sheet is filed, custody continues, and trial may be prolonged.

The complainant reported that on 20.05.2025 he had parked his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10/BN/1522 under the Chuhchuhiyapara Overbridge, near a vegetable shop, and had fallen asleep.

On waking the following morning, he found the motorcycle missing.

Sirgitti Police Station registered Crime No. 276/2025 for offences under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The applicant was arrested during investigation and remained in judicial custody from 30.06.2026.

After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent court.

The applicant thereafter filed his first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The applicant denied involvement, relied on the absence of an eyewitness or direct evidence, and contended that the alleged criminal antecedent arising from another vehicle-related FIR should not be treated as an independent antecedent because the vehicle had not been recovered.

The State opposed bail, relying on the material collected during investigation and the applicant’s criminal antecedent.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the alleged theft of the motorcycle.

Whether the absence of an eyewitness, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, the pendency of trial, and the nature of his criminal antecedent justified release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, concerning theft and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, respectively.

The Court applied the established bail principles requiring consideration of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the possibility of the accused remaining in custody for a prolonged period, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the risk of misuse of bail.

The Court also imposed conditions under the applicable procedural law to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent adjournments, and address any misuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court found that, although the applicant was alleged to have participated in the theft, there was no eyewitness to the incident because the complainant had been asleep and discovered the motorcycle’s disappearance only the next morning.

The Court also considered that the applicant had been in custody since 30.06.2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take further time.

The applicant’s only explained criminal antecedent under the IPC was pending trial, which was not treated as sufficient, in the circumstances, to deny bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to stringent conditions.

The applicant was required, inter alia, not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on every date either personally or through counsel, 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 further proceedings in case of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.