Grant of bail on grounds of parity where charge-sheet is filed and criminal antecedents are explained.

The applicant filed a first bail application seeking regular bail following his arrest on September 18, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 170/2024.

The prosecution alleged that on August 30, 2024, an unknown person trespassed into a residence in Arjunda and stole jewelry.

During investigations into a separate crime (No. 180/2025), a memorandum statement led to the applicant's arrest, alleging he received stolen jewelry from co-accused persons and sold it in the market as part of an organized crime syndicate.

A charge-sheet was subsequently filed under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Rajesh Soni and the fact that he was already granted bail in related cases.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) based on the principle of parity and the duration of his judicial custody.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It considered the doctrine of parity, specifically referring to the previous bail granted to co-accused Rajesh Soni in MCRC No. 1127/2026.

The Court also referenced procedural requirements under Section 269 of the BNS (failure to appear), Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 of the BNS (punishment for non-appearance) to impose conditional liberty.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations involving organized theft and the sale of stolen property under the BNS.

While the State opposed bail citing the applicant's five criminal antecedents and status as a habitual offender, the Court noted that the applicant had successfully explained these antecedents: he was granted bail in three cases, one was pending, and bail was granted in the fifth case on the same day as the present application.

Crucially, the Court found that the co-accused Rajesh Soni, facing similar allegations, had already been enlarged on bail.

Balancing the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since September 2025, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court determined that the applicant met the threshold for parity.

The holding established that parity with a co-accused and the explanation of criminal antecedents are sufficient grounds for bail despite the "habitual offender" label.

The relief was granted subject to strict conditions, including mandatory appearance at trial, a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, and the risk of proceeding under Section 209 BNS for any breach of bail liberty.