Parity warrants regular bail where implication rests solely on co-accused statements without recovery of contraband.

On October 13, 2024, police raided Yadu Farm House in Kedarbadi, seizing 4,788 bulk litres of illicit liquor

While the applicant, Santosh Pade, was not named in the First Information Report (FIR), he was implicated during the investigation based on memorandum statements provided by co-accused persons

It was alleged that the applicant procured liquor from Madhya Pradesh and rebranded it with Chhattisgarh labels

However, no actual liquor was seized from the applicant’s possession; the recovery was limited to 10 empty bottles, 3 cartons, and 12 stickers

The applicant has been in custody since March 11, 2025

Although charges were framed on November 18, 2025, no prosecution witnesses had been examined as of January 22, 2026

Several co-accused, including Laxmi Nath Yadu and Gopi @ Sonu Dhritlahare, were previously granted bail by the High Court, and another co-accused, Deepak Banjare, was granted bail by the Supreme Court

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons and the lack of recovery of contraband from his possession.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant regular bail

The substantive charges were brought under Sections 34(2), 59(A), and 36 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Court relied upon the judicial principle of parity in bail matters, ensuring that an accused on an identical footing with co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail is treated similarly

Furthermore, the Court considered the procedural principle that the prolonged detention of an undertrial prisoner during a slow-moving trial justifies the exercise of discretion for bail

The Court observed that the applicant’s implication was based solely on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons, which possess limited evidentiary value at the stage of bail

It highlighted that, unlike the primary seizure at the farm house, the recovery from the applicant did not include any illicit liquor, only packaging materials

The Court found that the applicant’s case stood on an identical footing to co-accused persons who had already been granted regular bail by the High Court and the Supreme Court

Given that the applicant had been incarcerated for over a year (since March 2025) and the trial had seen no progress in witness examination despite charges being framed, the Court determined that the conclusion of the trial would take considerable time

Consequently, applying the doctrine of parity and considering the nature of the evidence, the Court found the applicant entitled to relief

The Court ordered the release of Santosh Pade upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) he must appear personally or through counsel on all trial dates; (iii) any violation of bail terms or failure to appear under proclamation may result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS

The trial court was directed to treat any breach of conditions as an abuse of liberty