Parity with bailed co-accused and simple injuries justified regular bail despite one criminal antecedent.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 315/2025 registered at Police Station Masturi (Chowki Malhar), District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 119(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute concerning money and consumption of liquor, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the victim with their hands, legs and a belt and abused him in filthy language, causing injuries.

The case was initially registered against unknown persons, and the applicant was subsequently arrested during investigation on the basis of a memorandum statement.

The applicant had been in custody since 31.03.2026; the charge-sheet had been filed; and he had one criminal antecedent from 2026.

Three co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the High Court.

The applicant therefore sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the nature of the allegations, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet and the likelihood of delay in trial.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused who had already been granted bail, despite his criminal antecedent.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

It considered the general bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the material against the accused, the period of detention, the likelihood of completion of trial, and the possibility of misuse of liberty.

The Court also applied the principle of parity, under which similarly situated co-accused may ordinarily receive comparable treatment, subject to differences in their individual roles and circumstances.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 119(1) and 3(5) of the BNS.

Bail was made subject to conditions under the BNSS, including appearance before the trial court and compliance with directions concerning evidence, framing of charge and recording of the accused’s statement.

The Court found that although the prosecution alleged that the applicant participated in the assault, the injuries sustained by the victim were simple in nature.

The applicant had remained in custody since 31.03.2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

Although the applicant had one criminal antecedent, it was from 2026 and the charge-sheet in that case had also been filed.

Significantly, three co-accused persons in similar circumstances had already been granted bail, and the State could not dispute that fact.

Balancing the allegations against these mitigating circumstances, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on bail in Crime No. 315/2025 upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning proclamation and absence, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.