Parity and completion of investigation warrant regular bail notwithstanding the existence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 144/2025 for allegedly entering the SECL workshop at Bhatgaon Colliery with co-accused persons and committing theft of industrial components, including 5 PT boxes, 6 bearings, 20 meters of copper cable, and a gear box

The applicant has been in judicial custody since 07.09.2025

Following the completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2), 3(5), and 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The applicant sought regular bail primarily on the grounds of parity with a co-accused and the conclusion of the investigation

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the stage of the criminal proceedings

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

It applied the principle of parity, referencing the prior grant of bail to co-accused Rajan Yadav in MCRC No. 1200 of 2026

The Court also considered standard bail parameters, including the nature of the offence, the maximum prescribed punishment (noting the offences are not punishable by death or life imprisonment), and the progress of the trial

Procedural conditions for the continuation of bail were governed by Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS/BNS

The Court examined the merits of the application in light of the completed investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet, noting that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary

While the State Counsel opposed the bail citing two previous criminal antecedents [para. 4], the Court weighed this against the fact that the applicant had undergone a substantial period of detention since September 2025

The Court found the applicant’s role and circumstances to be similar to those of co-accused Rajan Yadav, who had already been enlarged on bail

Considering that the trial was likely to be protracted and the offences did not carry capital or life sentences, the Court determined that continued detention was unjustified

The Court held that the applicant deserved bail due to the filing of the charge-sheet, the duration of custody, and the principle of parity

The holding was subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during evidence, must appear on all trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS), and must comply with all procedural requirements to avoid proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS