Regular bail granted on grounds of parity and absence of criminal antecedents post-charge-sheet.

The applicant, Rakesh Vishwakarma, was arrested on December 29, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 96/2025 registered at Police Station Singhora.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in the illegal and unsafe refilling of LPG cylinders from tankers into other cylinders for unlawful gain, violating safety norms.

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds of parity, noting that co-accused Prakash Gupta and Mohan Gupta had already been granted regular and anticipatory bail, respectively, by the same High Court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) based on the principle of parity and the stage of the trial.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive offenses charged included Sections 287 (negligent conduct with respect to fire/combustible matter), 305(e), 221, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The Court also integrated procedural safeguards under Sections 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), 269 (non-attendance in obedience to order), and 351 (evidence) of the BNS/BNSS framework to ensure trial compliance.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense involving unauthorized LPG refilling against the applicant's clean criminal record and the duration of his detention since late 2025.

A pivotal factor in the Court's reasoning was the principle of parity; the State Counsel could not dispute that the applicant's role was identical to that of the co-accused persons who had already secured bail.

The Court observed that since the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant's further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and the trial was expected to take considerable time.

Consequently, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to secure the applicant's presence during the trial.

The holding established that the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity and the filing of the charge-sheet.

The release was made subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to specific conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory appearance on all trial dates; and (iii) personal presence during the framing of charges and recording of statements.

The Court further directed that any breach of liberty or failure to appear would result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.