Regular bail granted on parity after charge-sheet filing and in the absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 314/2026, registered at Police Station Koni, Bilaspur, for alleged offences under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 341(2) and 341(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused concealed the actual cause of a death and fraudulently obtained financial assistance under the Government’s Snakebite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance Scheme, causing loss to the State exchequer.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting that he had received no money, had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 20 June 2026, and was entitled to parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, noting that the charge-sheet had been filed.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail, having regard to the allegations, his custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of trial.

2. Whether bail should be granted on the ground of parity with a co-accused who had already been released on bail.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s or Court of Session’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offences were those specified under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 341(2) and 341(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court assessed bail by reference to the circumstances it identified: the nature of the allegations, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likely time for conclusion of trial, and the co-accused’s prior bail order.

The Court found that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had remained in custody since 20 June 2026, while the trial was likely to take time.

It also took account of the co-accused’s grant of bail by the High Court, which supported the applicant’s plea of parity.

Considering these circumstances together, the Court held that the applicant should be released on bail.

Bail was subject to conditions against influencing persons acquainted with the case, prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial, and failure to attend each hearing until the trial’s disposal.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s decision on the merits.