Vishal Rohitesh Naidu refused bail after alleged break and enter in West Tamworth

Vishal Rohitesh Naidu remains behind bars after making an unsuccessful bid for release in Tamworth Local Court after he was charged on Sunday with "ransacking" two West Tamworth properties of more than $8700 worth of belongings, heirlooms, personal documents and other memorabilia.

The court heard the 39-year-old man was visiting town when he allegedly stole clothes, collectable coins, a Jim Beam flag, expired driver's licences and a passport, bank statements and $2500 cash from a home and a neighbouring shed on In Street between May 15 and May 20.

The Western Sydney man is also accused of making off from the properties with a folder of childhood awards, a military badge, registration plates, a battery-powered shaver, cologne and tools, including an angle grinder and a welder worth $2500, and more.

READ ALSO:

Police prosecutor Sergeant Rob Baillie told the court Naidu posed an "unacceptable risk" to the community, and opposed his bail application.

He said Naidu was a "flight risk" and he wasn't satisfied a curfew would stop any further offending.

"These offences are alleged to have happened in the day," Sergeant Baillie said. "The community needs protection."

Legal Aid defence solicitor Arabella Munro argued the police case against Naidu was "not very strong".

She offered strict bail conditions, including that Naidu could return to Sydney where he has family "ties", report to police daily, stay off drugs, and steer clear of Tamworth.

"He's been on remand once before but never sentenced to time in custody," Ms Munro said.

Magistrate Julie Soars refused bail and ordered Naidu remain behind bars. She adjourned the matter to July.

She said police were following a "number of lines of inquiry", and that Naidu was on good behaviour orders at the time he allegedly "ransacked" the two properties.

"It's a strong case that he was near the premises with the goods that were alleged to be stolen," Ms Soars told the court.

Naidu pleaded not guilty to break-and-enter house and steal; goods suspected stolen in or on premises; and entering inclosed land without a lawful excuse.

He pleaded guilty to one count of entering an inclosed land without a lawful excuse.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: