Grant of regular bail on the ground of parity despite six previous criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Mo. Faijan, filed a first bail application following his arrest on December 7, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 527/2025 at Police Station Balod

The prosecution alleged that two individuals approached the complainant, a political leader and journalist, under the guise of reporting illegal liquor sales.

Subsequently, the complainant’s vehicle was set on fire in his garage.

The applicant was implicated based on suspicion, despite the FIR being lodged against unknown persons.

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant sought bail primarily on the grounds of parity with four co-accused persons who had already been granted bail by the High Court.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the ground of parity and the stage of the trial.

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 relied on the principle of parity, which dictates that similarly situated accused persons in the same crime should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail.

Additionally, the court considered Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-appearance before the court and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons.

The Court observed that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

While acknowledging the applicant’s six previous criminal antecedents, the Court noted that he had been acquitted in five of those cases, with only one currently pending.

The pivotal factor in the Court's reasoning was that the case of the present applicant was "identical" to that of the co-accused persons (Mamta Dadsena, Ashwani Kumar Dadsena, Abhishek Choure, and Aniket Meshram), all of whom had been granted bail by the same Court between January and February 2026.

The State counsel did not dispute this identity of roles.

Consequently, given the duration of detention since December 2025 and the likely duration of the trial, the Court determined that the applicant met the criteria for release.

The holding affirmed that the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

The release was made subject to several conditions, including that the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments during evidence

must appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

and must comply with procedures under Section 209 of the BNS if bail conditions are breached.