Regular bail granted based on parity and charge-sheet filing despite the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Gopal, was arrested on October 22, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 727/2025 registered at Police Station Kharora, Raipur.

The prosecution alleged that a dispute arose between the parties regarding a demand for money to consume liquor, following which the applicant and other accused persons assaulted the victim with their hands, fists, and a belt.

The victim sustained "simple injuries".

The applicant sought regular bail, noting that a co-accused, Hitesh Yadav, had already been granted bail and that the charge sheet had been filed.

The State opposed the application, highlighting that the applicant is a habitual offender with six pending criminal cases registered between 2021 and 2025.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, despite having multiple criminal antecedents.

Whether the principle of parity applies given the prior grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

The substantive offences were considered under Sections 296, 115(2), 119(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court also referenced procedural mandates under Section 269 of the BNSS (regarding the presence of the accused), Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 of the BNS (failure to appear in obedience to a proclamation) to frame bail conditions.

Although the State argued that the applicant's six criminal antecedents characterized him as a habitual offender, the Court emphasized that the injuries inflicted were "simple".

Critically, the Court invoked the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Hitesh Yadav had been granted bail by the same Court in January 2026.

The Court observed that the charge sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been incarcerated since October 2025, concluding that since the trial would likely take time, continued pretrial detention was not warranted.

To address the risk posed by the applicant's history, the Court transitioned from a denial of bail to a grant of bail contingent upon "heavy sureties" and strict behavioral conditions.

The holding is subject to strict conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony; (ii) he must appear at every hearing or face proceedings under Section 269 of the BNSS; and (iii) any misuse of liberty or failure to appear after a proclamation will trigger proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS.

The Court held that the combination of the period of custody, the filing of the charge sheet, and parity with the co-accused justified the grant of bail.