Accused entitled to regular bail on grounds of parity and filing of charge-sheet.

On November 17, 2025, six to seven unidentified individuals entered the residence of the complainant, Dilip Rathore, falsely representing themselves as officers of the Income Tax Department

The individuals conducted a search of the premises without producing a warrant; however, they departed without seizing any property or currency

An FIR was subsequently lodged on December 12, 2025, at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari

The applicant was arrested on December 16, 2025, in connection with the incident

The applicant sought regular bail primarily on the ground of parity, noting that a co-accused, Jitendra Baghel, had been granted bail by the High Court on March 10, 2026

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under the principle of parity and the current stage of the criminal proceedings

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which pertains to the power of the High Court to grant bail

The substantive charges against the applicant were registered under Sections 204(2), 319(2), 331(3), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Court applied the judicial principle of parity, which dictates that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail

The Court observed that the investigation had reached a significant milestone as the charge-sheet had already been submitted to the competent trial court

In evaluating the necessity of continued detention, the Court highlighted that the applicant had been incarcerated since December 16, 2025, and acknowledged that the trial's conclusion would likely be delayed

The pivotal factor in the Court's reasoning was the previous order dated March 10, 2026, in MCRC No. 2228 of 2026, wherein regular bail was granted to co-accused Jitendra Baghel

Applying the rule of parity to these facts, the Court determined that the applicant was entitled to the same relief as his co-accused, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure his participation in the trial

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail based on the completion of the charge-sheet and the principle of parity with the co-accused

The release was conditioned upon the applicant not seeking adjournments during witness testimony, mandatory attendance on trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and recording statements under Section 351 of BNSS), and a warning that misuse of liberty or failure to appear would result in proceedings under Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS