Regular bail granted on parity and completion of investigation despite applicant's criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Mohd. Saifi, sought regular bail after being arrested on 20.10.2025 in connection with Crime No. 0307/2025 at P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur.

The complainant, Mohd. Altaf, alleged that on 18.10.2025, a dispute regarding the removal of a sandalwood sheet led the applicant and others to assault him with fists, an iron rod, and a batta with the intent to murder.

The applicant was charged under Sections 109, 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons and the completion of the investigation.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the principle of parity and the stage of the trial.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It also considered the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, where similarly situated co-accused are granted similar relief.

The court referred to the penal provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 109 (Punishment of abetment), 296 (Obscene acts and songs), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 118(1) (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), and 191(3) (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon).

The court evaluated the applicant's custody duration (since 20.10.2025) and the fact that the investigation was complete with the charge sheet already filed.

Although the State Counsel raised concerns regarding the applicant’s ten total criminal antecedents, the court noted that the applicant had attempted to explain six of them in the application.

Crucially, the court applied the principle of parity, observing that co-accused Mohammad Juned Chauhan and Mohammad Asgar had already been granted bail in previous orders (MCRC Nos. 2048/2026 and 2674/2026).

Finding the medical reports inconsistent with the severity of the prosecution's claims, the court determined that further incarceration was unnecessary.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: (i) no seeking of adjournments during witness testimony, (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates, and (iii) compliance with appearance requirements for framing charges and statements under Section 351 of BNSS.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.