Accused Is Entitled to Bail on Parity Where Similarly Situated Co-Accused Have Been Granted Bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 172/2026, registered for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 41(1), 41(2)(b)(d) and 52(1) of the Indian Forest Act

The case arose from the interception of a vehicle transporting approximately 23,350 kilograms of Khair wood, for which the driver produced an NTPS No Objection Certificate

The applicant relied on the release of co-accused persons on anticipatory and regular bail, his lack of criminal antecedents, his period in custody and the likely duration of the trial; the State did not dispute that co-accused facing similar allegations had been released on bail

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons released on bail

Whether the applicant’s custody, lack of criminal antecedents and the likely duration of the trial supported release on bail

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the basis for the application for regular bail

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the period of pre-trial detention, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the likely time required to conclude the trial and whether similarly situated co-accused had been released on bail

The Court applied the principle of parity, concluding that an applicant facing similar allegations may be entitled to bail where co-accused have already been granted bail, subject to the circumstances of the case

The Court found that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that co-accused facing similar allegations had been released on anticipatory or regular bail; the State did not dispute this comparison

Taking those facts together with the period of pre-trial detention and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity and that bail was warranted, without expressing any opinion on the merits

Bail was subject to conditions concerning adjournments, attendance, appearance at specified stages of trial and consequences for failure to appear

The Registry was directed to send a certified copy of the order to the trial court