Bail granted for robbery offenses citing parity and trial delay despite applicants' criminal antecedents.

The applicants sought regular bail following their arrest in connection with an incident occurring on April 25, 2024.

The prosecution alleged that while the complainant was sleeping in his truck near Deorikhurd, two individuals broke the truck door with a brick, assaulted the complainant with a knife—resulting in a broken hand—and robbed him of a mobile phone and ₹11,000

The applicants were arrested on January 22, 2026

Procedurally, the applicants Shailesh Singh Chouhan and Kushal Pasi disclosed five criminal antecedents (four disposed), and Shivam Chouhan disclosed four antecedents (two disposed)

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of their criminal history and the nature of the alleged robbery

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail

Sections 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the BNSS to outline the procedural obligations and penalties for non-compliance while on bail.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the applicants' period of detention and the status of their criminal records. While the State opposed bail citing the applicants' multiple criminal antecedents

the Court observed that the majority of those prior cases had already been disposed of.

The Court reasoned that since the applicants had been in jail since January 22, 2026, and the trial was expected to be protracted, a grant of bail was appropriate on the grounds of parity and the likely duration of the legal proceedings.

The Court emphasized that the liberty of bail was contingent upon strict adherence to trial schedules to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicants furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each. Specific directions were issued: (i) the applicants must not seek adjournments during witness testimony; (ii) they must appear on every hearing date or face proceedings under Section 269 of the BNSS; and (iii) they must be personally present for the framing of charges and the recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court warned that any violation would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.