Parity and filing of charge-sheet justify grant of bail notwithstanding the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested on 25.10.2025 in connection with Crime No. 440/2025 for allegedly conspiring with co-accused persons to steal 18 quintals of rice and 8 quintals of gram from a Government Fair Price Shop in Gram Panchayat Koldiha

The prosecution alleged the theft was committed in an organized manner, causing loss to the government

Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

The applicant filed for regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, that the trial would take time to conclude, and that two similarly situated co-accused (Krishna Dhimar and Indrapal Sahu) had already been granted bail by the High Court

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant's five criminal antecedents from 2025 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail

Sections 331(4), 305(A), 112, 117(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The court also applied the principle of parity, where if co-accused with similar roles are granted bail, the applicant may be entitled to the same, and the principle that bail may be granted if the trial is likely to be prolonged and the investigation is complete

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offence, involving the organized theft of government-allocated food grains, against the procedural status of the case

The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since October 2025 and that the charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning the investigation was complete

Although the applicant had five criminal antecedents, the Court placed substantial weight on the fact that co-accused persons in the same crime had been granted bail by coordinate orders of the same Court in January and February 2026

The Court reasoned that since the trial was not expected to conclude soon, further pre-trial detention was not warranted, provided that strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's cooperation and presence during trial

It ordered the release of Rafik Khan on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties

The grant of bail was subject to specific conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) he must appear at every trial date or face proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS; (iii) any misuse of liberty leading to a proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS would trigger proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS; and (iv) mandatory personal presence is required during the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS