Grant of Regular Bail on Grounds of Parity and Completion of Investigation for Organized Stolen Property Offence

The applicant filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on September 18, 2025, in connection with an organized crime involving housebreaking and theft.

On September 15, 2024, jewellery was stolen from the residence of Sanjurani Goswami.

Subsequently, based on memorandum statements from another crime (No. 180/2025), the applicant was implicated for allegedly obtaining stolen jewellery and selling it for financial gain.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Rajesh Soni and because the investigation resulted in a filed charge-sheet.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the principle of parity and the duration of his judicial custody.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

The court also applied the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused (Rajesh Soni) had already been granted bail in MCRC No. 1152/2026.

Furthermore, the court considered Sections 331(4), 305(A), 112, 238, 317(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding to IPC provisions related to housebreaking, theft, and disposal of stolen property).

The court examined the nature and gravity of the allegations, noting the prosecution’s concern regarding the applicant’s five criminal antecedents.

However, the court found the applicant’s explanation for these antecedents satisfactory, noting that he had been granted bail in three of those cases and a fourth was allowed on the same day as the present application.

Applying the principle of parity, the court highlighted that co-accused Rajesh Soni was already released on bail.

Finally, the court weighed the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had been in custody since September 2025, concluding that since the trial would take a considerable time, further detention was not warranted provided stringent conditions were met to ensure participation in the trial.

The holding is conditioned upon the applicant not seeking unnecessary adjournments, appearing at every trial date, and strictly complying with Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS regarding presence and non-abuse of liberty.

The court formally directed the trial court to treat any default in these conditions as an abuse of the liberty of bail.