Even if the accused is a habitual offender, recidivism does not automatically negate the right to bail, especially for minor offenses. The presumption of innocence must be upheld.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [ BNSS ], seeking regular bail.

2. In paragraph 6 of the bail petition, the accused declares has the following criminal antecedents:

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the copy of FIR annexed with the petition, as per which the petitioner allegedly stole a sports bicycle and a pair of shoes, of which the bicycle was duly recovered.

4. The petitioner’s bail application No. BA/61/2025 was dismissed on February 3, 2025, as withdrawn by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and his bail application number BA-630/04.03.2025 was dismissed on merits by the Additional Sessions Judge on March 18, 2025.

5. The alleged theft was captured on CCTV, in which the thief had concealed his identity with a muffler. The FIR was registered after a delay of 10 days. Ld. Additional Sessions Judge denied bail on the grounds of recidivism, disregarding the sketchy evidence and the long, unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR, and overlooking the presumption of innocence.

6. It is the foundational global jurisprudence in criminal law that an accused cannot be presumed guilty before the establishment of guilt.

7. After that, the petitioner came up before this Court, and when on 27 May 2025, the matter was first posted before this Court, the petitioner had already incarcerated for around four months of custody, for stealing a bicycle, which was recovered during investigation, and a pair of shoes, which he might be needing to wear and this Court granted interim bail to the petitioner, which remains in effect to date. During the interregnum, there is no allegation against the petitioner violating any of the bail conditions. Given above, the petitioner makes out a case for confirmation of the interim order.

8. The penal offences under BNS, 2023 mentioned in FIR are Sections 331(4), 305, 112, 317(2), 238, and none of the allegations captioned above would attract any offence that provides for capital punishment; or ten years, and thus the concerned sub-section of Section 238 is impliedly S. 238(c), which is triable by a Magistrate. Thus, all the offences arraigned in the FIR were triable by the Magistrate, and despite that, the Ld. Counsel withdrew the bail application from the Court of CJM, and when he filed for bail before the Sessions Court, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the same.

9. After withdrawal of the bail before the CJM, the petitioner had filed an application for regular bail before the Sessions Court, which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge.

10. It is unbelievable that any Counsel would voluntarily withdraw bail in such a minor offence, and further, it would have been real justice had the CJM not permitted the Counsel to withdraw and instead granted bail. This apparently poor person had to spend more than three months and twenty days in jail for stealing a bicycle and a pair of shoes, and the incarceration is much longer if he had pleaded guilty, based on one-sided, unproven allegations, all for the sake of early release because of the fai