Bail denied for habitual offender failing to adequately disclose twelve criminal antecedents despite parity arguments.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 201/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on October 14, 2025, the applicant and thirteen others cut and stole approximately 450 meters of copper cable wire from the Charcha East Mine.

While eight co-accused were arrested and others granted bail by the High Court in previous applications, the applicant surrendered before the Trial Court.

The applicant argued for parity with co-accused and noted his custody since December 12, 2025.

However, the State opposed the bail, highlighting the applicant's extensive criminal record.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the principle of parity and his criminal antecedents.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail.

The court considered the underlying principles of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), specifically Sections 331(4) (house-trespass), 305(e) (theft in dwelling house/vessel etc.), and 310(2) (robbery/dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt).

The primary legal principle applied was the discretionary power of the court to grant bail based on the nature and gravity of the offence and the conduct (criminal antecedents) of the accused.

The Court analyzed the applicant's eligibility for bail by weighing the gravity of the allegations against his personal history. Although the applicant sought parity with co-accused who were granted bail, the Court distinguished his position based on his significant criminal history consisting of 12 previous antecedents.

The Court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory or detailed explanation for these 12 cases in his application, whereas the co-accused who received bail either had no prior records or significantly fewer (one to four) antecedents.

Consequently, the Court determined that the applicant's habitual involvement in criminal activities outweighed the factors favoring his release.

The bail application was rejected. The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously and directed the office to communicate the order for compliance.