Parity and stale criminal antecedents justify regular bail following the filing of a charge-sheet.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on October 16, 2025, in connection with an incident occurring on October 15, 2025.

It was alleged that the applicant demanded extortion money from one Rajendra Nath Jogi and subsequently assaulted the complainant, Hemraj Sahu, with a stick, while co-accused persons assaulted the complainant with sticks, fists, and kicks, causing serious head injuries.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Purani Bhilai for offenses under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The investigation was completed, and a charge-sheet was filed on November 28, 2025.

The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of parity, as two co-accused—Durgesh Kumar Yadav and Suryakant Singh @ Kalu Thakur—had already been granted bail by the High Court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS on the ground of parity and the status of the investigation?

2. Whether the applicant’s 29 criminal antecedents serve as an absolute bar to the grant of bail when most cases are not currently pending?

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

It considered the substantive charges under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), specifically Sections 109 (Abetment), 296 (Obscene acts), 351(3) (Criminal intimidation), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 308(4) (Extortion/Robbery related), and 3(5) (Joint liability).

The court also relied on the judicial principle of parity and the distinction between active criminal cases and "old and stale" antecedents in bail adjudications.

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, reducing the immediate necessity for custodial interrogation.

Significant weight was given to the principle of parity, as the High Court had already released two co-accused individuals involved in the same transaction.

Addressing the State’s objection regarding the applicant’s 29 criminal antecedents, the court observed that only two cases were currently pending, while the remaining 27 were "old and stale," thereby diminishing their weight as a disqualifier for bail.

Given the applicant’s period of incarceration since October 2025 and the likely duration of the trial, the court determined that continued detention was not warranted.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions: (i) the applicant must file an undertaking not to seek adjournments during witness testimony; (ii) mandatory appearance on all trial dates; and (iii) mandatory personal presence for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, with default resulting in potential cancellation of bail.