Accused entitled to regular bail on grounds of parity and absence of criminal history.

The applicant was arrested on 27.11.2025 following a police raid at the residence of a co-accused, Nandkumar, in Village Pondi

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and others were manufacturing illicit and spurious liquor; the police seized equipment, materials, and packaging during the raid

Crime No. 199/2025 was registered under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 19.02.2026, and the matter is currently pending trial as Criminal Case No. 605/2026

The applicant sought regular bail, citing the period of detention and the fact that other co-accused had already been granted bail

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the absence of criminal antecedents

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the grant of regular bail

The substantive charges were examined under Sections 34(1)(b), 34(2), 35, 49-A, and 59-A of the C.G. Excise Act, and Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The Court further relied on the principle of parity, ensuring consistency in judicial orders when similarly placed co-accused have been granted relief

The Court's reasoning centered on the applicant's duration of custody (since November 2025) and the procedural status of the case, noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed

It significantly weighed the fact that co-accused persons, Idris Khan @ Pintu and Chotu @ Dinesh Chandravanshi, were granted bail by the same Court in March 2026 under similar circumstances

The Court also took cognizance of the State's admission that the applicant had no prior criminal record

Reasoning that the conclusion of the trial would likely be delayed, the Court determined that further pre-trial detention was not warranted provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's participation in the proceedings

The holding was conditional upon the applicant: (i) undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) appearing personally or through counsel on all dates, failing which Section 269 of the BNS would apply; (iii) adhering to proclamations under Section 84 of the BNSS to avoid proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS; and (iv) appearing in person for key trial stages such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS