Bail granted on parity to a similarly situated accused despite disclosed criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested on 3 December 2025 in connection with Crime No. 116/2025 registered at Police Station Bastar, District Bastar, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(A) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, during the intervening night of 8–9 November 2025, unknown persons broke the lock and latch of the complainant’s house and stole gold and silver ornaments and cash valued at approximately ₹60,000.

During investigation, the applicant’s memorandum statement allegedly connected him and his associates with the theft and with similar offences in different places.

The applicant contended that his implication was based principally on his memorandum statement, that no articles were recovered from his conscious possession, that the seized property had not been identified by the complainant, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the alleged recovery from the joint possession of the applicant and his associates, his two criminal antecedents, and the possibility of his absconding or repeating offences.

The applicant also relied on parity, as co-accused Bhuvan Singh Alava had already been granted bail by the High Court.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegations of house-breaking theft, alleged recovery, criminal antecedents and the prosecution’s apprehension of absconding or repetition of offences.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Bhuvan Singh Alava, who had already been granted bail in the same case.

3. Whether the applicant’s prolonged custody, filing of the charge-sheet and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial justified release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences were considered under Sections 331(4), 305(A) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the material regarding recovery, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the anticipated duration of trial and the principle of parity with a similarly situated co-accused.

The Court also relied on the established principle that bail may be granted subject to conditions designed to secure the accused’s presence, prevent misuse of liberty and ensure an expeditious trial.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s case regarding recovery from the joint possession of the applicant and his associates and took note of his two disclosed criminal antecedents.

However, the charge-sheet had already been filed, eliminating the immediate need for further custodial interrogation; the applicant had remained in custody since 3 December 2025; and the trial was likely to take additional time.

Although the alleged offences were serious, the Court found the applicant similarly situated to co-accused Bhuvan Singh Alava, who had already been granted bail, thereby supporting the application of parity.

Balancing these factors, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to safeguards ensuring his attendance and preventing abuse of bail.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation and non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.