Bail granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused received bail and applicants had no criminal antecedents.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 172/2026 registered at Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 17 June 2026, a vehicle carrying approximately 23,350 kilograms of Khair wood was intercepted and that the driver produced an NTPS No Objection Certificate bearing No. AP/KU/K/KU-160, which was subsequently found to be forged or fabricated.

The applicants contended that they were not named in the FIR, had been implicated principally on the basis of a co-accused’s memorandum, had no role in creating or manipulating the NTPS document, and had no criminal antecedents.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and Applicants 1 and 2 had been in custody since 31 July 2026 while Applicant 3 had been in custody since 8 August 2026.

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

The prosecution invoked Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS in relation to cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal conspiracy and common liability.

The Court applied the principle of parity, under which an accused whose role and circumstances are materially identical to those of co-accused already granted bail may ordinarily receive similar treatment, subject to the facts of the individual case.

The Court also considered the absence of criminal antecedents, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet and the anticipated duration of the trial.

The Court noted that, although the applicants were alleged to have acted in connivance with the co-accused in using a forged NTPS document for transporting approximately 23,350 kilograms of Khair wood, the State did not dispute that their case was identical to that of co-accused who had already obtained bail.

The Court therefore treated parity as the principal consideration.

It further relied on the applicants’ lack of prior criminal antecedents, their period of incarceration, the filing of the charge-sheet and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted in these circumstances and that the applicants were entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

The Court directed that Irfan Khan, Salauddin Khan and Motiram Dadsena be released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds with two local sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring the applicants not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning their appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.