Regular bail granted on parity after prolonged custody and chargesheet filing, despite serious conspiracy allegations.

On 28 October 2025, unidentified assailants allegedly opened indiscriminate fire outside the office of Tamesh Singh at Masturi, Bilaspur, injuring Dhanendra Singh @ Raju Singh and Chandrakant Singh. During investigation, Arman @ Balamjeet Anant and Chahat @ Vikramjeet were identified as the alleged shooters in a test identification parade. The prosecution alleged, on the basis of co-accused memorandum statements, that Akbar Khan, Nagendra Rai and Tikeshwar Singh had engaged Vishwajeet Anant for a contract killing and that Nagendra had supplied the weapons used in the offence. Vishwajeet was alleged to have received money for executing the plan

Nagendra Rai sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), while Vishwajeet Anant, who had been in custody since 29 October 2025, sought regular bail under Section 483 BNSS. The offences alleged were under Sections 109, 111, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet, comprising approximately 459 pages and citing 73 witnesses, had been filed. Co-accused Akbar Khan, Mohd. Mustkim @ Nafis and Mohd. Matin had previously been granted regular bail by the High Court

Whether Nagendra Rai was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, considering the allegations that he supplied weapons, his alleged abscondence, non-cooperation with investigation and criminal antecedents

Whether Vishwajeet Anant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the material collected against him, his period of custody, completion of investigation, parity with bailed co-accused and the likely delay in trial

The Court applied Sections 482 and 483 BNSS, which respectively govern anticipatory bail and regular bail.

It considered the settled bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the prima facie material, the applicant’s conduct, criminal antecedents, likelihood of absconding or influencing witnesses, the stage of investigation and the probable duration of the trial.

The Court also considered the principle of parity, particularly where a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail, while recognising that parity is subject to the individual role and circumstances of each accused.

The alleged offences were evaluated with reference to Sections 109, 111, 61(2) and 3(5) BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

As against Nagendra Rai, the Court found the allegations sufficiently grave because he was alleged to have supplied the weapons used in the firing. His alleged abscondence for more than ten months, failure to cooperate with the investigation and criminal antecedents weighed against the grant of discretionary anticipatory bail.

In contrast, although Vishwajeet was alleged to have accepted money to participate in the contract killing, the Court noted that he had remained in custody since 29 October 2025, the investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time owing to its volume and the number of witnesses. The Court further relied on the fact that similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail and that most of Vishwajeet’s previous cases had resulted in acquittal. These factors outweighed the prosecution’s opposition for the limited purpose of bail.

The regular bail application filed by Vishwajeet Anant was allowed. He was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions including non-commission of offences, cooperation with the prosecution and investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial; breach of the conditions would enable the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the trial.