Bail granted where implication relies solely on co-accused’s memorandum statement without independent incriminating recovery.

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on November 30, 2025.

On November 26, 2025, police conducted a raid at the house of co-accused Nandkumar Kurre, where several individuals were allegedly manufacturing spurious liquor.

The police seized 8.82 bulk litres of liquor, manufacturing equipment (capping machines, printers), and raw materials.

Although the applicant was not present during the raid, he was implicated based on investigation and co-accused statements suggesting he supplied chemicals and sealing machines.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since his arrest, and a charge-sheet has been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given that no recovery was made from his possession and his implication is based on the statements of co-accused.

2. Whether the principle of parity applies to the applicant following the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

Sections 34(1)(b), 34(2), 35, 49(a), and 59(a) of the C.G. Excise Act and various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), and 3(5).

Principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, as established by prior orders in MCRC No. 2733/2026 and MCRC No. 2472/2026.

The court evaluated the gravity of the allegations involving the organized manufacture of spurious liquor against the specific evidence linking the applicant to the crime.

It noted that no incriminating material, illicit liquor, or manufacturing tools were recovered directly from the applicant’s possession; his involvement was evidenced solely through the memorandum statements of co-accused.

The court emphasized that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and that the investigation is complete with the filing of the charge-sheet.

Furthermore, the court observed that co-accused persons Idris Khan @ Pintu and Chhotu @ Dinesh Chandravanshi, who faced similar allegations, had already been enlarged on bail.

Consequently, the court determined that continued pre-trial incarceration was unnecessary as the trial would likely take considerable time.

The court held that the lack of direct recovery and the principle of parity outweighed the State's objections regarding the seriousness of the offence.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance on all trial dates and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Any violation of these conditions would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail.