Anticipatory bail granted on grounds of parity where co-accused has already been released on bail.

The applicant, Billa Rakesh, was a purchaser/agent appointed under a 2019 tender for the collection and disposal of Tendu leaves in Bijapur

On June 10, 2022, a complaint was filed by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) alleging that during a stock verification on March 5, 2021, approximately 1,852 bags of Tendu leaves were found missing, causing a loss of ₹1,47,53,855/- to the State

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, in connivance with the godown in-charge (Rajendra Dewangaon), misappropriated the property

The applicant sought anticipatory bail, arguing that as a purchaser, his responsibility ended upon delivery to the godown in 2019, while the shortage was discovered years later in 2021 when the stock was under the sole custody of the godown in-charge

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of misappropriation and the claim of parity with a co-accused

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail

Sections 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 420 (Cheating), and 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The court also relied on the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, noting that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted relief

The Court examined the contractual timeline, noting the applicant's argument that his role was limited to the period between March 2019 and March 2020, and that the godown in-charge was responsible for the "double-lock system" custody

The Court highlighted a significant delay between the last shifting of leaves (June 2019) and the physical verification (March 2021), as well as the further delay in filing the FIR (June 2022)

Crucially, the Court observed that a co-accused, Ashok Kumar Patel, had already been granted bail by the same Court in MCRC No. 6500 of 2025

Applying the doctrine of parity and considering the nature of the dispute and materials on record, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond and one local surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition against committing similar offences