Parity principle warrants grant of bail despite criminal antecedents in cattle preservation offenses.

On September 10, 2025, police received secret information regarding a vehicle (CG 04 PT 8078) transporting cattle from Korba without adequate food or water

A subsequent raid revealed 17 cattle, two of which were dead

The applicant was arrested on October 14, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 590/2025

The applicant moved for regular bail following the filing of the charge-sheet, arguing he was not present at the spot and had no contact with co-accused persons

The prosecution opposed the bail, highlighting the applicant's five criminal antecedents and labeling him a habitual offender

The applicant had been in custody since October 8, 2025

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS on the ground of parity with co-accused persons already released

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides the High Court the authority to grant regular bail

The substantive offences were registered under Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004

The Court further relied on the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, ensuring that similarly situated accused are treated equally

Additionally, the Court referenced procedural conduct under Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding the consequences of non-appearance and misuse of liberty

The Court examined the identical nature of the allegations against the applicant and the co-accused persons, Anish Qureshi and Gurvendra Nagarchi, who had already been granted bail by the same Court

While acknowledging the State's concern regarding the applicant’s five criminal antecedents, the Court noted that four of those cases were already disposed of and the only pending case originated in 2022

The Court reasoned that since the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, there was no immediate necessity for continued detention, especially as the trial was likely to take significant time to conclude

Consequently, the Court determined that the applicant met the threshold for parity

The holding was subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties

The Court imposed several conditions, including a mandate that the applicant shall not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear personally during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and must comply with appearance requirements to avoid proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS