Bail granted on parity where similarly situated co-accused had already been released.

The applicant was arrested on 1 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 42/2026 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 316(3), 61, 336(3), 340(2), 316(5), 338, 3(5), 238 and 249 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The prosecution alleged that six LPG cylinders seized in an earlier case were handed over on supurdnama to Thakur Petro Chemicals on 30 March 2026, but LPG valued at approximately ₹77 lakhs was dishonestly misappropriated and sold.

The applicant was alleged to have acted as the establishment’s manager and, in conspiracy with its owner, participated in the misappropriation.

The FIR was lodged on 29 April 2026, allegedly 29 days after the incident.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and that similarly placed co-accused—Manish Choudhary, Ajay Yadav and Pankaj Chandrakar—had already been granted bail.

The State opposed the application but accepted that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the co-accused had been granted bail.

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.

The Court relied on the principle of parity, under which an accused similarly situated to co-accused who have already been granted bail may ordinarily be entitled to comparable relief, subject to the facts of the individual case.

The Court also considered relevant bail factors, including the absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, length of custody and the possibility of delay in conclusion of trial.

The alleged offences were under the specified provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The Court noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and had remained in custody since 1 May 2026.

Investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

Most importantly, three co-accused in the same prosecution had been granted bail by the Court in earlier orders, and the State did not dispute their comparable position.

In light of the principle of parity, the completion of investigation and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court found the applicant entitled to regular bail.

The applicant, Nikhil Vaishnav, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning 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.

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