Bail is warranted where fewer antecedents and parity with a similarly placed co-accused are established.

During the intervening night of 19 May 2026, 294 litres of diesel, valued at ₹28,529, were allegedly stolen from a truck parked near Beverage Corporation, Sirgitti, after its diesel tank was forcibly opened. The truck driver allegedly awakened during the incident and was threatened with a knife and confined inside the cabin. An FIR was registered against unknown persons at Police Station Sirgitti on 25 May 2026 for offences under Sections 303(2), 111, 309(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

During investigation, co-accused persons allegedly named the applicant, Bhishmdev, also referred to as Bhisham Dev Khunte alias Montu, as an associate involved in the offence. The applicant was arrested, and the investigation remained incomplete, with some alleged co-accused still absconding

The applicant denied involvement, relied on an alibi that he had been arrested from his B.A. Fourth Semester examination centre on the date of the alleged incident, and contended that no incriminating article had been recovered from him. He further claimed that he had been implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s memorandum statement arising from a land dispute and sought parity with co-accused Manishankar Kurre, who had been granted bail

The State opposed bail, principally relying on the applicant’s three criminal antecedents and arguing that parity with Manishankar Kurre could not be granted

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the pending investigation, and the material collected against him?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Manishankar Kurre, despite having three criminal antecedents?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail. It considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 303(2), 111, 309(4) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, along with the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the stage of investigation, and the principle of parity among similarly situated co-accused

The Court held that parity is not automatic and must be assessed in light of the individual accused’s role, criminal antecedents, and overall circumstances; however, where a co-accused with comparable antecedents has been granted bail and the applicant stands on a better footing than another accused whose bail was rejected, those circumstances may justify release on bail

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and noted that bail had been denied to co-accused Sanjay Kurre, who had eight criminal antecedents, including two cases relating to organised crime. However, the applicant had only three antecedents, which had been explained in the bail application and were stated to be pending while he remained on bail in those matters. The Court therefore found that the applicant stood on a better footing than Sanjay Kurre

It further relied on the fact that co-accused Manishankar Kurre, who also had criminal antecedents, had already been granted bail. Since the applicant’s circumstances were considered similar to those of Manishankar Kurre, the Court applied the principle of parity and concluded that continued custody was not justified, notwithstanding the pending investigation and the State’s objections

Bhishmdev was ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 368/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court

The release was subject to conditions requiring his cooperation with the trial, attendance on specified dates, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and consequences for misuse of bail or non-appearance