Bail cannot be granted if there is a risk of absconding and prior cases pending against a petitioner.

ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

10.01.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 310(4) and 310(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, cn 10.01.2026 at about

07.00 a.m., the petitioners, along with other accused persons, were found forming an unlawful assembly and allegedly making preparations for committing dacoity. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they have been in judicial custody since 10.01.2026 and that the charge against them is only with regard to preparation for dacoity. The learned counsel would further submit that the case has been falsely foisted against them and hence, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that three previous cases are pending against the petitioners. He further submitted that, if enlarged on bail, the petitioners are likely to misuse the liberty granted by this Court. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. On consideration of the facts of the case, it is seen that three previous cases are pending against the petitioners. In view of the antecedents of the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that it is not desirable to enlarge them on bail at this stage. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), there is every likelihood of the petitioners absconding if they are enlarged on bail. Therefore, in order to secure their presence during trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.