Regular bail granted on parity despite criminal antecedents, following charge-sheet filing and prolonged detention.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 77/2026 registered at Police Station Bango, District Korba, for offences under Sections 296, 351(3) and 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 26 April 2026, the applicant and a co-accused intercepted the complainant, who was travelling in a coal-laden trailer, demanded vehicle documents and money, and allegedly robbed ₹800 from his purse, ₹7,000 from his pocket and caused a transfer of ₹1,700 through PhonePe.

The applicant had been in custody since 28 April 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

He had two pending criminal antecedents arising from cases registered in 2025 and 2026 under the NDPS Act and the BNS.

The co-accused, Raunak Singh, had already been granted bail by the High Court in MCRC No. 4693 of 2026.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegations of robbery, his pending criminal antecedents and the prosecution’s opposition.

Whether parity with the co-accused who had already been granted bail, along with the applicant’s period of detention and filing of the charge-sheet, justified grant of bail.

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

It considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 296, 351(3) and 309(4) of the BNS, the period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the principle of parity with a similarly placed co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The Court also imposed conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages of trial and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegation that the applicant, in collusion with the co-accused, intercepted the complainant and participated in the taking of cash and a PhonePe transfer.

It also took note of the applicant’s two pending criminal cases, which weighed against him.

However, the applicant had remained in custody since 28 April 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

Most significantly, the co-accused, Raunak Singh, had already been granted bail, and the State could not dispute that fact.

Balancing the seriousness of the allegations against these circumstances, the Court concluded that continued detention was not necessary and that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The High Court directed that Kunal Rajak be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS, and to comply with the consequences prescribed in case of absence or misuse of bail.