Grant of bail to accused with infant child where role is limited to memorandum statements of bailed co-accused.

The applicant filed her first bail application following her arrest in connection with Crime No. 17/2025 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Ambikapur.

The prosecution alleged that on November 10, 2025, commercial prostitution was being conducted at a residence in Ambikapur for illegal profit.

The applicant was accused of providing customers to co-accused individuals who facilitated the activities by providing rooms.

The applicant's name surfaced in the memorandum statements of co-accused Indrapati Sarthi and Laxmi Vishwas.

The applicant had been in custody since February 17, 2026.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the principle of parity and her personal circumstances.

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

The Court also considered the substantive offences under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Furthermore, it applied the principle of parity regarding co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The judicial consideration of the welfare of an infant child in custody with the mother.

The Court observed that the primary evidence linking the applicant to the crime was the memorandum statements of co-accused Indrapati Sarthi and Laxmi Vishwas.

Crucially, the Court noted that these specific co-accused individuals had already been granted bail by the same High Court in MCRC No. 325/2026 and MCRC No. 210/2026 in January 2026.

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the applicant has an infant child and has been detained since mid-February 2026.

Applying the logic that the trial is likely to consume significant time and that the applicant's role was identified through statements of persons already released, the Court determined that continued detention was not warranted.

The High Court directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) she must not seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) she must appear on all fixed dates or face proceedings under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); (iii) any misuse of liberty may trigger proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS; and (iv) personal presence is mandatory for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.