Facts
The Applicant was arrested on 30.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 144/2025 at P.S. Bhatgaon.
Source reference: para 1, 3The prosecution alleged that the Applicant, along with co-accused persons, unlawfully entered the SECL workshop and committed theft of industrial equipment, including PT boxes, bearings, copper cable, and a gearbox.
Source reference: para 2Following the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, the Applicant moved this first bail application before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
Source reference: para 1, 6Issues
Whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the grounds of parity and prolonged pre-trial detention.
Source reference: para 1, 3Law Applied
The Court applied the provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, relating to the High Court's power to grant regular bail.
Source reference: para 1The substantive charges were registered under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2), 3(5), and 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Source reference: para 1The Court further relied on the judicial principle of parity in bail matters, observing that similarly situated co-accused (Rajan Yadav, Sonu Rajwade, Shahzad, and Upendra Hathgen) had already been granted bail by coordinate benches.
Source reference: para 3, 6Reasoning
The Court evaluated the merits of the bail application by balancing the nature of the allegations against the Applicant's period of incarceration since November 2025.
Source reference: para 3, 6It noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had already been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence.
Source reference: para 6Crucially, the Court observed that four other co-accused persons involved in the same transaction had been granted bail between February and April 2026. Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time to conclude, the Court found that continued pre-trial detention was not warranted and that the Applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity.
Source reference: para 3, 6Holding
The Court held that it was a fit case for bail subject to the Applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.
The High Court allowed the bail application and directed the Applicant to comply with strict conditions, including: (i) not seeking adjournments during evidence; (ii) appearing on all trial dates under penalty of Section 269 BNS; (iii) facing proceedings under Section 209 BNS if bail is misused; and (iv) mandatory presence during framing of charges and recording of Section 351 BNSS statements.
Source reference: para 6, 7Original Court PDF
SANJEET SINGH @ LAMBUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in