Bail granted considering co-accused's anticipatory bail, detention period, and anticipated trial delay.

The applicants, Abdul Sattar and Mohammad Yusuf, were arrested in connection with Crime No. 35/2026 registered at Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, and Section 3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The case arose from information received on 10.01.2026 via the "Satark App" alleging fraudulent transportation of paddy by rice millers, including the applicants, with inflated weight claims.

An investigation on 12.01.2026 and 13.01.2026 found that three rice mills (Upleta Rice Mill MA638511, Upleta Rice Mill MA401259 & National Dal Mill MA639750), all operating on the same premises, had 1,87,606 bags of paddy, while their online stock showed only 29,681 bags.

The applicants contended that a significant portion of the paddy (1,57,925 bags) was government stock for milling, 11,730 bags were previous year’s stock, and 5,930 bags and 11,574 bags were legally purchased, leaving only 447 bags as normal buffer stock.

Co-accused Abdul Samad was granted anticipatory bail by the Court in MCRCA No. 227/2026 on 02.03.2026.

Applicant No. 1 has one criminal antecedent, and Applicant No. 2 has none, and they have been in jail since 20.01.2026.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The court primarily considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

The principle to grant bail based on parity with a co-accused who has already received anticipatory bail was also applied.

The general considerations for granting bail, such as the period of detention and the likely time for trial conclusion, were also taken into account.

The court considered the applicants' first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The counsel for the applicants argued that the alleged discrepancy was minor after accounting for government stock, previous year's stock, and legally purchased paddy, with only 447 bags remaining as normal buffer stock, suggesting no irregularity.

A significant factor in the court's decision was the fact that co-accused Abdul Samad had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same Court in a related matter.

The court also noted the applicants' period of detention since 20.01.2026 and acknowledged that the trial's conclusion would likely take a considerable amount of time.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, these factors collectively led the court to believe that the applicants were entitled to bail.

The Court directed that the applicants, Abdul Sattar and Mohammad Yusuf, be released on bail for Crime No. 35/2026, on each furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

The release was subject to conditions including filing an undertaking not to seek adjournments for evidence, remaining present before the trial court, and adhering to provisions regarding default of bail conditions under Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.