Parity with bailed co-accused warrants bail where prolonged trial delay is anticipated.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 42/2026 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 316(3), 61, 238, 249, 316(5), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act

The prosecution alleged that three LPG capsule trucks entrusted to Thakur Petro Chemicals under a supurdnama had their valve-box seals broken and LPG gas removed.

GPS data allegedly showed that the vehicles had remained at the premises of Thakur Petro Chemicals, and approximately 50 tonnes of LPG valued at about ₹45,00,000 was allegedly stolen in connivance with the applicant and other accused persons

The applicant denied involvement, asserting that he was neither the proprietor nor involved in the day-to-day affairs of Thakur Petro Chemicals, and that no incriminating material had been seized from him.

The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed on 28 July 2026; none of the 94 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The applicant had been in custody since 26 May 2026 and relied, inter alia, on the grant of bail to three co-accused by the High Court on the ground of parity.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, the completed investigation, the period of custody and the anticipated delay in trial.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail by the High Court.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, the period of custody, the stage and likely duration of the trial, and the principle of parity with similarly situated co-accused.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s attendance, prevent delay, and regulate misuse of the liberty of bail under the applicable provisions of the BNSS and BNS.

The Court considered the prosecution allegations and the material available in the case diary, but also noted that the investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time because 94 witnesses had been cited and none had yet been examined.

The applicant had remained in custody since 26 May 2026. Most significantly, three co-accused—Manish Kumar Choudhary, Ajay Yadav and Pankaj Chandrakar—had already been granted bail by the High Court in connected proceedings.

On these circumstances, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity, without making any final determination on the merits of the prosecution case.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, 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.