Regular bail granted on grounds of parity and absence of criminal antecedents under BNSS.

The police intercepted a truck (Reg. No. CG-10-R-2601) following a tip-off regarding the illegal transportation of coal from Sirsinga to Raigarh

The applicant and a co-accused, Akhil Lahre, were apprehended in the vehicle, which was found carrying approximately 20 tons of coal and sporting a fake registration number

The accused claimed they were acting on the instructions of another co-accused, Amit Agrawal

Upon failure to produce valid documentation for the coal, FIR No. 332/2025 was registered

The applicant was arrested on December 22, 2025

Following the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant moved for regular bail primarily on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who had already been granted relief

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the stage of the investigation?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which pertains to the power of the High Court to grant bail

The substantive charges were examined under Sections 112(2), 303(2), 336(3), 338, 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, concerning theft, forgery, and criminal conspiracy

The court relied on the legal principle of parity, citing its previous orders in Akhil Lahre v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRC No. 1062/2026) and Amit Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRCA No. 149/2026), where co-accused individuals were granted regular and anticipatory bail, respectively

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense alongside the procedural status of the case. It noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the applicant had been in custody since December 2025

A pivotal factor in the Court’s reasoning was the identical nature of the applicant’s role compared to the co-accused, Akhil Lahre, who had already been released on bail

The Court observed that the State could not dispute this parity

Additionally, the court considered the applicant’s lack of previous criminal antecedents and the likelihood that the trial would consume significant time

By applying the law to these facts, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted provided the applicant adhered to strict conditions to ensure his presence during trial

The Court ordered his release upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek adjournments during the evidence stage; (ii) he must appear on every trial date or face proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS; (iii) any failure to appear after a proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS would trigger proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS; and (iv) personal appearance is mandatory for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS