Parity and Completion of Investigation Entitle Accused with Prior Antecedents to Regular Bail

The applicant, Sunil Kumar Panika, was arrested on October 24, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 201/2025 for allegedly participating in a dacoity/theft at "56 Label Pump" and the "Charcha East Mine".

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with 10–12 hooded accomplices armed with sickles and sticks, threatened mine guards and stole approximately 450 meters of copper cable wire.

Following an investigation and filing of the charge-sheet on December 3, 2025, the applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, citing parity with co-accused persons who had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail based on the principle of parity with co-accused persons and the duration of his detention.

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

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 305(E) (Theft in certain circumstances/Dacoity), 331(4) (House-trespass), and 310(2) (Dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court also applied the principles of parity in bail jurisprudence and considered Section 269 (non-appearance) and Section 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the BNS, as well as Section 84 and Section 351 of the BNSS regarding trial procedures and attendance.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—unlawful entry and theft of copper wire using threats—against the procedural status of the case.

The Hon’ble Chief Justice noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the applicant had been in custody since October 2025.

Crucially, the Court observed that three identically situated co-accused (Purushottam, Suresh Kumar Panika, and Ayodhya Basor) had been granted bail by the same Court in March 2026.

While the applicant had two criminal antecedents, the Court noted that he had already been acquitted in one, and the other remained pending. Finding the applicant’s role identical to those already released, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary for the duration of the trial.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions including: non-seeking of adjournments during witness testimony, mandatory presence during key trial stages (charge framing and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS), and warnings regarding consequences for non-appearance under Section 269 and 209 of the BNS.