The court granted regular bail to a 19-year-old applicant despite recovery of stolen property and criminal antecedents, considering the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of detention, and parity with a co-accused.

Order on Board

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 77/2025 registered at Police Station- Pandari, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.04.2025, as per the written complaint, the complainant’s son, Gopichand Sahu, had parked his Yamaha MT-15 motorcycle bearing registration No. CG- 04-PU-0126 outside a coaching centre at Mowa, Raipur, and upon returning after about an hour, found the vehicle missing, whereupon an FIR was registered at Police Station Pandri against unknown persons. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the present applicant, namely Sandeep Sahu, was arrested on 24.01.2026, and it is alleged that he made a memorandum statement stating that he, along with co-accused Khebendra Das Manikpuri, had stolen the said motorcycle by using a master key. On the basis of the said memorandum, the stolen vehicle was allegedly recovered from a multi-level parking near Ghadi Chowk. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the offence has been registered against the applicant, who has been arrested, hence, this bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, having no role in the commission of the alleged offence, and that there is no cogent legal evidence available on record to substantiate the allegations made by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution rests entirely on the memorandum statement recorded during police custody, which is inadmissible in evidence being hit by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. It is also contended that the co-accused, namely Khevendra Das Manikpuri, having an identical role, has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble this Court vide order dated 17.03.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2475/2026 , and therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to parity. She further submits that the present applicant has 02 previous criminal antecedents explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application. She also submits that the applicant is a young man aged about 19 years, having deep roots in society, with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed on 18.02.2026, the applicant is in jail since 24.01.2026, and no prosecution witnesses have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the present bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant is actively involved in the commission of the offence and his complicity is clearly reflected from the material collected during the course of investigation. It is contended that the co-accused, namely Khevendra Das Manikpuri, who has been granted bail by the Hon’ble this Court vide order dated 17.03.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2475/2026 , stands on a different footing, as no recovery was effected from him. In contrast, in the present case, the stolen motorcycle has been recovered at the instance of the applicant pursuant to his memorandum statement, which clearly establishes his direct involvement in the offence. It is further submitted that such recovery is a strong incriminating circumstance against the applicant and distinguishes his case from that of the co-accused.

He also submits that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents of the similar nature which shows that he is a habitual offender, therefore, t