Facts
On January 21, 2026, unknown persons allegedly stole eight batteries from a Government Primary School in District MCB
Source reference: para 2An FIR was registered on February 6, 2026, under Sections 331(4) and 305(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Source reference: para 2The Applicants, Anmol Khatik and Rahul Rajak, were arrested on February 7, 2026
Source reference: para 3After the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed for offenses under Sections 331(4) (house-trespass/house-breaking), 305(A) (theft in a building), and 3(5) (common intention) of the BNS
Source reference: para 1, 2The Applicants moved the High Court for regular bail after a co-accused, Kirtan Kenwat, was granted bail on April 6, 2026
Source reference: para 3Issues
1. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the stage of the trial.
Source reference: para 1, 6Law Applied
The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court or Sessions Court regarding bail
Source reference: para 1The substantive charges were under Sections 331(4), 305(A), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), corresponding to Sections 457, 380, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Source reference: para 1The court further considered the principle of parity in bail matters, observing that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted relief
Source reference: para 6Reasoning
The court evaluated the facts and circumstances of the case, noting that while the Applicants were named during investigation, the initial FIR was against unknown persons
Source reference: para 3The court emphasized that a chargesheet had already been filed and that the Applicants had been in custody since February 7, 2026
Source reference: para 3, 6A key factor in the court's reasoning was the principle of parity, as the co-accused, Kirtan Kenwat, had already been granted bail by the same court in MCRC No. 3022/2026
Source reference: para 6Despite the State’s objection regarding Rahul Rajak’s two previous criminal antecedents, the court determined that since the trial would likely take considerable time, continued detention was not warranted
Source reference: para 4, 6Holding
The court concluded that the Applicants were entitled to bail due to the filing of the chargesheet, the duration of their detention, and the bail granted to the co-accused
The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of both Applicants on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties
Source reference: para 7Original Court PDF
ANMOL KHATIKvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in