Facts
The applicant, Manuraj Mourya, was arrested on February 14, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 42/2025 involving an armed robbery where unknown persons looted approximately Rs. 66,25,000/- and jewelry using a pistol
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The applicant was implicated based on a memorandum statement of a co-accused
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3This is the applicant’s third bail application; the first two were rejected on merits on May 13, 2025, and August 20, 2025
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused, lack of criminal antecedents, and the prolonged duration of the trial
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, despite the rejection of previous applications, considering the stage of the trial and parity with other co-accused
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1Substantive offences under Sections 310(2) (Dacoity), 331(5) (House-trespass), 123 (Concealing design to commit offence), 351(3) (Criminal intimidation), 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy), 168, and 238 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act
Source reference: p. 1-2, para. 1, 3Principle of parity in bail jurisprudence and the right to a timely trial as factors mitigating the previous dismissals on merits
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7Reasoning
The Court observed that although the applicant’s previous bail pleas were rejected, significant changes in circumstances had occurred. Specifically, a similarly situated co-accused, Shahid Taj, had been granted bail by the High Court in April 2026
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 4, 7The Court noted that the trial was progressing slowly; only 09 out of 21 prosecution witnesses had been examined, suggesting the trial would not conclude soon
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7The Court weighed the applicant’s clean criminal record and his continuous incarceration since February 2025 against the gravity of the allegations
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7The Court reasoned that continued detention was unnecessary provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during the trial
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 8Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that the prolonged custody and parity with the co-accused outweighed the initial objections
The Court allowed the application and directed that the applicant be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: no adjournments during witness presence, mandatory attendance at trial, and specific presence during framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 8, 8(i), 8(ii), 8(iv)Original Court PDF
MANURAJ MOURYAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in