Regular bail granted based on parity and custody duration notwithstanding the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

On January 23, 2026, a complaint was lodged alleging that the applicant and co-accused obstructed the construction of a government mangal bhawan at Ward No. 11, Gajra playground, by shouting and halting the work

Consequently, the applicant was arrested on February 19, 2026, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The applicant moved for regular bail, arguing that the charge-sheet had been filed, investigation was complete, and a co-accused had already been granted bail by the trial court

The State opposed the application, noting that the applicant had three criminal antecedents, though only one case remains pending

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the period of incarceration and the fact that a co-accused was granted bail

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides for the grant of regular bail

The substantive offences were registered under Sections 132 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 221 (obstructing public way), 226 (resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension), and 191 (rioting) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court also considered the relevance of criminal antecedents and the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence

The Court balanced the nature and gravity of the offences against the duration of the applicant's detention, which began on February 19, 2026

It observed that since the charge-sheet had been filed, custodial interrogation was no longer required

Although the State highlighted three criminal antecedents, the Court noted that only one case is currently pending conclusion

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused had already been released on bail by the trial court

Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted, provided that strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's participation in the trial

The holding is subject to several conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory appearance on all trial dates; (iii) the possibility of proceedings under Section 209 BNS if bail is misused; and (iv) personal presence for specific trial milestones like the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS

The Court directed the trial court to treat any default as an abuse of liberty