Regular bail granted on parity after similarly situated co-accused obtained bail and the charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant was arrested on 25 March 2026 in connection with Crime No. 0083/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur, for offences under Sections 61(2), 112(2), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 337, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that an illegal call centre was being operated from Pithaliya Complex, Raipur, through which US-based persons were defrauded on the pretext of arranging loans and improving credit scores. During the raid, 53 mobile phones, 17 laptops and 18 computer systems were seized, and 33 persons, including the applicant, were named as accused.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting false implication, absence of criminal antecedents and parity with co-accused Om Kodvale, Shivam Pandey and Mohammad Gufaran Hussain, who had already been granted bail.

The State opposed the application but conceded that the charge-sheet had been filed and that an identically situated co-accused had been granted bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the filing of the charge-sheet, his period of custody and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with similarly situated co-accused who had already been granted bail?

Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of the liberty of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The Court considered the established bail principles relating to the absence of criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, the likelihood of delay in trial and parity with similarly situated co-accused.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 61(2), 112(2), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 337, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act.

Bail was made subject to statutory and court-imposed conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages of trial and consequences for absence or misuse of bail.

The Court found that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 25 March 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the need for continued custodial detention for investigation.

The Court also noted that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Most significantly, similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail, and the State was unable to dispute the applicant’s claim of parity.

Applying the principle of parity along with the relevant considerations governing regular bail, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The Court safeguarded the trial process by imposing conditions requiring attendance, cooperation with the proceedings and personal appearance at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the accused’s statement.

The order was principally based on parity with co-accused, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, the period already spent in custody and the anticipated delay in trial.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings in the event of proclamation and to appear personally at specified stages of the trial.