Regular bail granted on parity considering circumstantial evidence, prolonged custody, and delayed trial.

The appellant was arrested in Crime No. 111/2025 registered at Police Station Birra, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 103(2), 61(2)(a) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that the principal accused, Rajkumar Sahu, had misused the position held by his wife, the village Sarpanch, which was opposed by the deceased, Mahendra Baghel, the Upsarpanch. Due to this enmity, Rajkumar allegedly called the deceased through Amit Tandon and asked him to come alone to his house. The deceased thereafter went to the house but did not return, and his dead body was subsequently recovered.

The FIR was registered on 8 September 2025, two days after the incident, against eight persons. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against nine accused, including two juveniles. The appellant had been in custody since 9 September 2025.

The bail applications of two juveniles and three major co-accused had been allowed. In particular, the bail application of similarly situated co-accused Durgesh Aditya was allowed by the High Court on 1 July 2026. Out of 31 prosecution witnesses, only four had been examined.

Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending trial for the alleged offences?

Whether the appellant’s prolonged custody, the circumstantial nature of the prosecution case, the absence of direct evidence, and parity with a released co-accused justified grant of bail?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in relation to the appellant’s prayer for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(2), 61(2)(a) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the evidence, the period of custody, the likely duration of the trial, and the principle of parity with a similarly situated co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The Court found that the prosecution case against the appellant was not based on direct evidence but on circumstantial evidence, with the seizure of a mobile phone being the principal circumstance relied upon against him.

The FIR had been lodged two days after the incident, and the appellant had remained in custody since 9 September 2025. The Court also noted that the trial was likely to take considerable time because only four of the 31 cited witnesses had been examined.

Since the bail application of similarly situated co-accused Durgesh Aditya had already been allowed, and the appellant’s case was considered identical, the Court applied the principle of parity. Balancing these circumstances against the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held that continued pre-trial detention was not justified.

The appellant was directed to be released on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one solvent surety for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to his appearance as and when directed.

The Registry was directed to transmit the order to the trial court for information and necessary compliance.