Bail warranted on parity where similarly placed co-accused were released and trial would be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested on 28 October 2024 in connection with Crime No. 333/2024 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, following a money dispute, the applicant and other co-accused forcibly took Hariom Singh from his residence on the night of 24 October 2024 and assaulted him at their workplace using a wooden club, hands and fists. The victim was allegedly left near his residence in an injured condition at about 6:00 a.m. on 25 October 2024 and later died in hospital at approximately 2:15 p.m.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that the allegations against him were general, the investigation had concluded, and he had remained in custody since 28 October 2024. He also relied on the grant of bail by the Supreme Court to co-accused Santosh Soni and Saksham Pandey, against whom similar allegations were made.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had participated in the assault that caused the deceased’s injuries and death.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a case involving allegations under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, completion of investigation, prolonged custody and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant regular bail; Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, concerning the substantive offences alleged against the applicant; and the established bail considerations relating to the nature of allegations, completion of investigation, length of custody, likelihood of delay in trial and parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The Court also relied on the fact that co-accused Santosh Soni and Saksham Pandey, against whom similar allegations were made, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 7799/2026 and SLP (Crl.) Nos. 12306–12307/2026.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the prosecution allegations, including the alleged collective assault resulting in the victim’s death.

However, for the purpose of deciding bail, it considered that the investigation had already been completed, the applicant had been in custody since 28 October 2024, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The Court further found that the applicant could rely on parity because two co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Balancing these factors against the seriousness of the allegations, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of release on bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on every date either personally or through counsel, 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. The order further authorised the trial court to take action for breach or misuse of bail, including proceedings relating to absence and non-compliance with proclamation requirements.