Suppression of criminal antecedents and habitual offending justify rejection of regular bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), in connection with Crime No. 292/2025 registered at Police Station Nandini, District Durg, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 62, 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

On 13 November 2025, unidentified persons allegedly arrived in a white Tata Matador, vandalised an ATM with the intention of committing theft, and fled after local residents reached the spot.

The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons.

During investigation, the applicant was implicated on the basis of a disclosure/confessional memorandum allegedly made by co-accused Aarif in a separate case registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni, Madhya Pradesh.

The applicant denied involvement, contending that there was no identification, recovery, or direct corroborative evidence against him and that the investigation was substantially complete.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the applicant’s seven criminal antecedents and alleging that he had suppressed those antecedents before the Court.

The applicant had been in custody since 24 March 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in respect of the alleged attempt to vandalise and rob an ATM?

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and alleged suppression of those antecedents justified rejection of bail?

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

The Court also considered the nature of the offences alleged under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 62, 324(4) and 3(5) BNS.

In determining whether bail should be granted, the Court treated the accused’s criminal antecedents as a material consideration, particularly in assessing the likelihood of repeated criminal conduct and misuse of bail.

It relied on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, for the principle that an accused’s criminal history is an important factor in deciding a bail application.

Suppression of material facts by a bail applicant was also treated as a circumstance weighing against the exercise of judicial discretion.

Although the applicant relied on the FIR having been lodged against unknown persons, the absence of identification, lack of recovery, completion of investigation, and filing of the charge-sheet, the Court declined to grant bail primarily because the applicant had not disclosed his seven criminal antecedents.

The Court considered the antecedents—including pending cases involving serious offences—as indicative of habitual criminal conduct.

Applying the principle in Deepak Yadav, the Court held that the criminal history, coupled with suppression of a material fact, outweighed the grounds advanced in favour of release.

The Court consequently found that the applicant was not entitled to discretionary bail.

It held that the applicant’s undisclosed criminal antecedents and apparent habitual involvement in criminal cases made the matter unsuitable for grant of regular bail.

Accordingly, the applicant’s first bail application under Section 483 BNSS was rejected in Crime No. 292/2025 registered at Police Station Nandini, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.