Entitlement to bail on parity where implication is based solely on co-accused's memorandum statement.

On January 13, 2026, a gas tank transported by a pickup vehicle (No. CG 04 PZ 9485) caught fire and exploded on a National Highway.

The prosecution alleged the incident resulted from the negligent handling of inflammable materials by the driver, conductor, and owner, causing significant loss of life, property, and damage to highway infrastructure.

The applicant was not named in the initial FIR but was subsequently implicated based on the memorandum statement of the co-accused driver, Shailendra Singh Chouhan.

The applicant was arrested on January 15, 2026, and the charge sheet was filed on March 10, 2026.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail after being charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Essential Commodities Act, the National Highways Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the status of the investigation.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with discretionary power to grant regular bail.

It considered the substantive offenses under Sections 125(a), 110, 287, and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023; Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Section 8(b) of the National Highways Act; and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The court also relied on the principle of parity, noting the prior grant of bail to co-accused individuals under similar circumstances.

The Court evaluated the applicant's custody duration (since January 15, 2026) and the fact that the investigation had concluded with the filing of a charge sheet, suggesting that further detention was unnecessary for investigative purposes.

A significant factor in the court's reasoning was the principle of parity; the driver (Shailendra Singh Chouhan) had been granted anticipatory bail, and another co-accused (Devilal Joshi) had been granted regular bail by the same Court.

The Court further noted the State’s admission that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents.

Given the nature of the allegations and the likelihood that the trial would not conclude in the near future, the Court determined that the applicant met the criteria for release.

The High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions including an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments and a mandate to appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.