Grant of regular bail based on prolonged pre-trial detention and parity with similarly situated co-accused.

The Applicant filed a third bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding his arrest on October 2, 2023, for a robbery at Axis Bank, Raigarh.

The prosecution alleged that some individuals committed robbery on September 19, 2023, and the Applicant was later intercepted in a car at Ramanujganj.

Police seized arms, ammunition, and a motorcycle based on memorandum statements.

The Applicant contended that he was falsely implicated based solely on co-accused statements, that seizure witnesses were bank employees not present at the site of seizure (PW-6), and that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the length of pre-trial detention and the principle of parity with co-accused.

2. Whether the evidence on record, including the nature of seizures and witness testimonies, justifies continued detention.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) for grant of regular bail.

The court considered the nature of allegations under Sections 323, 506, 342, 450, 395, 397, 120B/34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

It further adhered to the principle of parity in bail matters and the right to a timely trial where 38 witnesses remained to be examined after two years of detention.

The court evaluated the facts and circumstances, specifically noting that the Applicant had been in jail since October 2, 2023—a period exceeding two years.

The court took cognizance of the Applicant’s argument that he was implicated primarily on the memorandum statements of others and that a key seizure witness (PW-6) admitted he was not present at the actual place of seizure.

Furthermore, the court observed that several other co-accused (Rahul Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, et al.) involved in the same transaction had already been enlarged on bail.

Although the State opposed bail citing CCTV footage and seized arms, it was noted that the seizure memo lacked specific details like the motorcycle number.

The Applicant was ordered to be released on a bail bond of ₹25,000 with one surety, subject to conditions: he must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend all court dates personally (or through counsel), and must appear in person for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.