Regular bail granted for illegal LPG refiling as co-accused obtained anticipatory bail and charge-sheet was filed.

On December 23, 2025, Food Department officials and police raided a farmhouse in Chivarakuta, Mahasamund, following reports of illegal LPG refilling.

The team found unknown individuals transferring gas from LPG capsule tankers into smaller cylinders without safety precautions.

The suspects fled, leaving behind equipment and tankers valued at approximately Rs. 93 lakhs.

The applicant, Prakash Gupta, was implicated during the investigation and arrested on December 25, 2025.

He sought regular bail on the grounds of false implication, parity with co-accused Mohan Gupta (granted anticipatory bail), and the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the nature of the allegations, his period of detention, and the principle of parity.

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 charges involved Sections 287 (negligent conduct with respect to machinery), 305(e), 221, 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, regarding the contravention of orders relating to essential commodities.

The Court also considered the doctrine of parity in bail jurisprudence relative to the co-accused.

The Court balanced the gravity of the offense—illegal LPG refilling posing a public safety risk—against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the applicant had been in custody since December 25, 2025, and that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had been filed.

Crucially, the Court observed that a co-accused, Mohan Gupta, had already been granted anticipatory bail on January 8, 2026, in MCRCA No. 12 of 2026.

Finding no record of prior criminal antecedents and noting that the trial would take time to conclude, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial.

The holding was conditioned on the applicant's undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments and his mandatory presence at key trial stages, such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail.