Parity justified bail where the applicant was implicated by co-accused statements and the seizure-holder was released.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 37/2026, registered for offences under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Excise Act and Sections 61(2)(A), 111(2-B)(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Police seized 7,975.72 bulk litres of liquor from co-accused Balram Dangi, who was arrested; the applicant was later implicated on the basis of co-accused persons’ memorandum statements.

The applicant argued that no incriminating article was seized from him, that Balram Dangi had been granted bail, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that he had been in custody since 29 July 2026.

The State opposed the application.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail where he was implicated on the basis of co-accused persons’ memorandum statements and no seizure was made from him.

Whether parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail, together with completion of the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody, and the likely duration of trial, justified bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the application for regular bail.

The Court considered parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail, alongside the completion of the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the likely time required for trial.

The judgment cites no further statutory test or precedent; it refers to the co-ordinate Bench’s bail order in MCRC No. 6767/2026.

The Court noted that the case was initially registered against Balram Dangi, from whom the liquor was seized, whereas the applicant was implicated through co-accused persons’ memorandum statements.

Since Balram Dangi had been granted bail, and the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 29 July 2026, and trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court found bail justified on the ground of parity.

It directed the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions concerning availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial.

The trial Court was directed to decide the case on its own merits.