Chhattisgarh High Court

Parity and filing of charge-sheet justify regular bail despite the existence of multiple criminal antecedents.

SONU RAJWADE @ MUNAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: April 20, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 144/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon for allegedly committing theft at the SECL workshop, Bhatgaon Colliery

Source reference: para. 1, 2

It is alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, stole 5 PT boxes, 6 SDL machine bearings, 20 meters of copper cable, and 1 gear box

Source reference: para. 2

The applicant has been in judicial custody since 07.09.2025

Source reference: para. 3

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court

Source reference: para. 3

The applicant moved the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Source reference: para. 1
02

Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the principle of parity with a co-accused

Source reference: para. 3, 6

2. Whether the applicant's seven criminal antecedents act as an absolute bar to the grant of bail

Source reference: para. 4, 6
03

Law Applied

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

Source reference: para. 1

the principle of parity in bail matters, particularly when a co-accused in the same crime has been granted relief

Source reference: para. 3, 6

Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) concerning penalties for non-attendance

Source reference: para. 7(ii)

Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons

Source reference: para. 7(iii)

Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of the accused's statement

Source reference: para. 7(iv)
04

Reasoning

The Court evaluated the necessity of continued detention against the progress of the legal proceedings.

Source reference: para. 3, 6

It noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, negating the requirement for further custodial interrogation

Source reference: para. 3, 6

The Court observed that the applicant had undergone a substantial period of detention since 07.09.2025

Source reference: para. 3, 6

Significantly, the Court applied the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Rajan Yadav had been granted bail by the same High Court on 04.02.2026 in MCRC No. 1200 of 2026

Source reference: para. 3, 6

While acknowledging the State's objection regarding the applicant's seven criminal antecedents, the Court reasoned that since the alleged offences are not punishable by death or life imprisonment and the trial is likely to be protracted, continued incarceration would be unjust

Source reference: para. 3, 6
05

Holding

The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant on regular bail

The holding established that the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties

Source reference: para. 7

The grant of bail was made subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during the evidence stage, must appear personally or through counsel on all fixed dates, and must specifically be present for the framing of charges and the recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

Source reference: para. 7(i), 7(ii), 7(iv)

The Court directed that any breach of these conditions or misuse of liberty would allow the trial court to proceed against the applicant in accordance with the law

Source reference: para. 7
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

SONU RAJWADE @ MUNAIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · April 20, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment