Parity and lack of direct recovery warrant regular bail in excise and BNS offenses.

On the basis of secret information, police conducted a raid at the residence of co-accused Nandkumar Kurre, recovering liquor bottles, hologram stickers, and empty bottles used for preparing spurious liquor

The applicant, Chotu @ Dinesh Chandravanshi, was implicated and arrested on November 27, 2025, on allegations of involvement in the illegal preparation and storage of said liquor

The applicant moved for regular bail, arguing that no contraband or machinery was recovered from his personal possession, the raid occurred at another's premises, and his implication was based solely on the memorandum statements of co-accused

Furthermore, a similarly situated co-accused, Idris Khan, had already been granted bail

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 lack of direct recovery from his possession

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), governing the High Court's power to grant bail

Substantive charges were registered under Sections 34(1)(B), 34(2), 35, 49-A, and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, alongside Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court also adhered to the judicial principle of parity, where an accused in similar circumstances as a released co-accused may be considered for bail

The Court evaluated the nature of the allegations and the specific role of the applicant. It noted that the recovery of incriminating materials took place at the house of a co-accused, not the applicant, and no specific overt act was attributed to him regarding the manufacture of spurious liquor

The Court found merit in the applicant’s plea for parity, as co-accused Idris Khan had been granted bail by the same Court in MCRC No. 2472/2026

Additionally, the Court considered that the charge sheet had already been filed, the applicant had been detained since November 2025, and the trial was expected to consume significant time, rendering continued pre-trial detention unnecessary

The holding is subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony [para 7(i)], must attend all trial dates [para 7(ii)], and faces proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS in the event of default or misuse of liberty

The Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the period of detention