Bail is warranted on parity where similarly placed co-accused are released and trial may be prolonged.

On 12 January 2026, the complainant parked his car outside Apollo Diagnostic Clinic, Raipur, and entered the clinic with his brother-in-law. On returning, he found the car’s rear window broken and discovered that a grey laptop bag containing ₹10,00,000, a laptop, tablet and external hard disk, as well as a black sling bag containing debit and credit cards, had been stolen.

CCTV footage allegedly showed 4–5 persons near the vehicle, including one person breaking the window and removing the bags. An FIR was registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur, for offences under Sections 305(c), 3(5), 324(5) and 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The applicant was not named in the FIR, but was subsequently implicated during investigation and arrested on 17 January 2026. The charge-sheet was filed on 16 March 2026.

Only ₹3,500, consisting of seven ₹500 notes, was seized from the applicant. Four co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court. The applicant therefore sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), principally on the ground of parity.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS after completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet?

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

3. Whether the applicant’s pending criminal antecedent justified rejection of bail despite his period of custody and the grant of bail to the co-accused?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

In exercising this discretion, the Court considered the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, the likely duration of the trial, the nature of the material allegedly recovered from the accused, and parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The Court also imposed conditions under the BNSS, including mandatory appearance, restrictions against seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, personal appearance at material stages of trial, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the immediate possibility of interference with the investigation. The applicant had remained in custody since 17 January 2026, while the trial was likely to take time.

Although the applicant had one pending criminal antecedent, that fact had been disclosed in the bail application and was not treated as determinative.

The Court also noted that only ₹3,500 had allegedly been seized from him and that four co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court.

Applying the principle of parity, along with the applicant’s prolonged custody and the completion of investigation, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted at that stage.

Bail was granted primarily on the ground of parity, having regard to the grant of bail to four co-accused, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since 17 January 2026, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial.

The release was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial Court, compliance with trial proceedings, no unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at specified stages, and consequences for absence or misuse of bail.