Bail granted on parity despite criminal antecedents, considering prolonged custody and likely trial delay.

The applicants, Vedprakash Vaishnav and Abhishek Prajapati, were arrested in connection with Crime No. 25/2026 registered at Police Station Pali, District Korba, for an offence under Section 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 16 January 2026 at about 1:00 a.m., unknown persons entered a petrol-pump office where the complainant and another employee were sleeping, assaulted them, and robbed approximately ₹8,000.

The applicants contended that they had been falsely implicated on suspicion and that co-accused Sameer Naresh had already been granted bail by the High Court.

They further submitted that they had remained in custody since 7 March 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial would take time.

The State opposed bail, relying on the applicants’ two criminal antecedents and alleging that they were habitual offenders.

Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, their period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of delay in trial?

Whether bail should be refused on the ground of the applicants’ alleged criminal antecedents and the State’s assertion that they were habitual offenders?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature of the accusation, the period of incarceration, filing of the charge-sheet, the expected duration of the trial, and parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The bail order was made subject to statutory and court-imposed conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages of trial, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court found that the applicants had been in custody since 7 March 2026, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, while the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The Court also considered the fact that co-accused Sameer Naresh had already been granted regular bail in connection with the same case, supporting the applicants’ claim of parity.

Although the State relied on two criminal antecedents, the Court did not treat that circumstance as sufficient to deny bail in the present case, particularly when weighed against the applicants’ prolonged custody, completion of investigation, and likely delay in trial.

The Court expressly clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring them to avoid unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, remain present before the trial court, appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and comply with the consequences prescribed for absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.