Grant of bail based on parity and prolonged pre-trial detention despite applicant’s extensive criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Laxman, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), following his arrest on October 10, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that on August 23, 2025, the applicant and three others demanded money at a liquor shop in Chanderi; upon refusal, the applicant allegedly assaulted one Laxman Shivhare with an axe, causing injuries to his hand and shoulder.

The applicant was charged under Sections 331(6), 296, 119(2), 118(1), 351(2), 3(5), 118(2), and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant argued false implication, citing that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet was filed, and co-accused persons had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the length of pretrial detention and the principle of parity with co-accused.

2. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents (25 previous cases) act as an absolute bar to the grant of bail in the present circumstances.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It relied on the fundamental principle that "prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty."

Regarding criminal history, the court applied the principle that the mere registration of cases does not equate to a proof of guilt, and the presumption of innocence remains until established otherwise by a competent court.

Furthermore, the court considered the doctrine of parity, noting that co-accused with similar allegations had been released.

The court examined the medical evidence and the specific role attributed to the applicant, noting the defense's contention that the incident arose from a sudden verbal altercation without premeditation.

While the prosecution highlighted 25 criminal antecedents, the court balanced this against the fact that the applicant had been in custody since October 2025 and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

The court noted that because the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

It found that the applicant’s continued incarceration would amount to "pre-trial punishment," which violates criminal jurisprudence.

Additionally, since co-accused Gajram, Sishupal, and Mastram had already been granted bail, the court found merit in the applicant's claim for parity.

The court ordered the applicant’s release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent local surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial, non-tampering of evidence, and a prohibition on committing further offences (failing which the bail would be automatically cancelled).