Regular bail granted on parity despite criminal antecedents after filing of the charge-sheet.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 273/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 305(A) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that unknown persons stole Gutkha, bidis, cigarettes and ₹2,000 from the complainant’s paan stall.

During investigation, the applicant was arrested on the basis of a memorandum statement.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, that no stolen articles were recovered from him, and that the offences were not made out.

He disclosed eight criminal antecedents, explaining that only two BNS cases were pending and the remaining cases had been disposed of.

His earlier bail application, MCRC No. 5879 of 2026, had been dismissed because registry defects had not been cured.

The charge-sheet had subsequently been filed, and co-accused Avinash Ratre had been granted bail on the ground of parity in MCRC No. 6837 of 2026.

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, the nature of the prosecution material and the absence of recovery from him.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Avinash Ratre, despite his criminal antecedents.

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

In assessing bail, the Court considered the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the nature of the allegations, the prosecution material, the applicant’s antecedents and the principle of parity with a similarly placed co-accused.

The offences alleged were under Sections 305(A) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court also imposed conditions requiring the applicant’s cooperation with the trial, regular appearance and personal presence at material stages of proceedings.

The Court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

It also took into account the applicant’s submission that the case rested on a memorandum statement and that no alleged stolen property had been recovered from him.

Although the applicant had eight criminal antecedents, the Court accepted the explanation that only two BNS cases were pending and that the remaining cases had been disposed of.

Most significantly, the co-accused Avinash Ratre had already been granted regular bail in the same crime, making the principle of parity applicable.

Considering these cumulative circumstances, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The applicant, Manas @ Sonu Singh, was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions that he would not seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, remain present before the trial court, comply with proceedings in the event of proclamation, and appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.