Anticipatory bail granted on parity with co-accused and absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 277/2026 registered at Police Station Old Bhilai, District Durg, for offences under Sections 303(2), 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that R.D.K. Industry had been granted a contract to remove and sell flue-dust residue generated at the Bhilai Steel Plant. On 26 May 2026, while flue dust was being transported, iron scrap was allegedly stolen in vehicles bearing registration numbers CG-04/QT-8797 and CG-08-AW-1475. The scrap was discovered during police patrolling, following which Bhilai Steel Plant officers lodged a complaint against several persons.

The applicant claimed false implication, relied on the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused persons in MCRCA Nos. 1244/2026 and 1304/2026, and submitted that he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the application but acknowledged that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 303(2), 317(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons and absence of criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The alleged offences were under Sections 303(2), 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In exercising its discretion, the Court considered the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and the principle of parity arising from the prior grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused persons in the same case.

After considering the case materials and submissions, the Court treated the grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused as a relevant parity circumstance.

The applicant’s absence of criminal antecedents, which was also not disputed by the State, further supported the exercise of discretion in his favour.

On these combined considerations, the Court found it appropriate to extend the protection of anticipatory bail despite the allegations concerning transportation and alleged theft of iron scrap from the Bhilai Steel Plant.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Vijendra Kumar Dhuriya be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; non-appearance before the trial court; submission and verification of Aadhaar documents and photographs of the applicant and sureties; and involvement in similar offences in the future.