Bail granted on parity where similarly situated co-accused were released, charge-sheet filed, and trial likely prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 42/2026 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, for offences under Sections 308(5), 296, 111, 351(3), 127(8), 115(2), 117(2), 61, 140(1) and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The prosecution alleged that, between 16 and 19 February 2026, the applicant and co-accused formed an unlawful assembly, intended to kidnap and extort the complainants, Jeevan Yadav and Rakesh Sharma, and assaulted them while armed with deadly weapons, including a pistol and sticks

The applicant denied involvement and contended that he had been falsely implicated merely because he was present during a dispute relating to repayment of a loan transaction.

He also relied on the absence of any seizure from him, filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 20 February 2026, and the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused persons

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had 13 criminal antecedents

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, his period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who had already been granted bail?

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents constituted sufficient ground to deny bail despite the other relevant circumstances?

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

The Court considered the settled bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material available against the accused, the period of custody, the stage of investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of parity with similarly placed co-accused persons

The offences alleged were under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The Court also imposed conditions regulating the applicant’s attendance, participation in trial, and non-misuse of the liberty of bail

The Court balanced the seriousness of the allegations against the circumstances favouring release.

Although the State relied on the applicant’s 13 criminal antecedents, the Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 20 February 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time

The Court further held that the applicant’s case stood on the same footing as that of co-accused Kamaran Abbas, who had previously been granted bail, thereby supporting relief on the principle of parity

On this cumulative assessment, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted pending trial.

Hariom Sonkar was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court

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 in the event of 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