Multiple FIRs on identical allegations and parity with a bailed co-accused support regular bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 208/2026, registered for offences under Sections 305(e), 331(4), 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that 76 bags of rice had been stolen from a fair price shop. During investigation, co-accused persons allegedly stated in their memoranda that they had sold the rice to the applicant and another person; the applicant was arrested on 11 August 2026.

The applicant submitted that three FIRs had been registered on the same allegations, that he had obtained bail in one of them, that similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, referring to the allegation that the applicant purchased stolen rice and to two other cases registered against him.

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail in light of the allegations, the basis for his implication, and the circumstances of the case.

Whether the registration of three FIRs on the same allegations, parity with a co-accused already granted bail, custody since 11 August 2026, and the likely time required to conclude trial supported granting bail.

The Court considered the applicant’s request under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and exercised its discretion to grant regular bail after considering the circumstances of the case, including the basis of implication, parity with a similarly situated co-accused, the period of custody, and the anticipated duration of trial.

No precedent or further bail test was cited in the order.

The Court noted that the applicant’s implication arose from the memoranda of co-accused and that three FIRs had been registered against him on the same allegations.

It also considered that co-accused Sonu, facing similar allegations, had been granted bail, that the applicant had remained in judicial custody since 11 August 2026, and that the trial was likely to take time. On these combined circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail notwithstanding the State’s opposition.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or a fair trial and requiring the applicant to appear on every date fixed by the trial Court.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s determination on the merits.