Parity with bailed co-accused and completion of investigation support grant of regular bail.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 0307/2025, registered at Azad Chowk Police Station, Raipur, following a dispute during the removal of a sandalwood sheet on 18 October 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant and others; the applicants were alleged to have participated in the assault, while other co-accused allegedly used a knife and a wooden bat.

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 109, 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicants sought regular bail, submitting that they were falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 1 July 2026, and that co-accused had been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged collective assault and the grievous nature of the injuries.

Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail, having regard to the allegations, available material, parity with bailed co-accused, filing of the charge-sheet, criminal antecedents and period of custody.

The application was made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court considered the nature of the allegations and material on record, as well as the grant of bail to co-accused, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and period of custody in deciding whether to grant regular bail.

No precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged the State’s allegations of collective participation and grievous injuries, but assessed those allegations alongside the relevant bail considerations.

It gave weight to the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicants had no criminal antecedents, they had been in judicial custody since 1 July 2026, and similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail.

On that combined basis, it found the applicants entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair and expeditious trial, and requiring appearance before the trial court on every date until disposal of the case.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and would not affect the trial court’s independent assessment of the merits.