Regular bail granted on parity despite criminal antecedents where a similarly situated co-accused secured bail.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 222/2026 registered at Police Station Tilda-Neora, District Raipur, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 119(1), 324(4), 331(2), 190, 191(2) and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)

A separate Crime No. 223/2026 was also registered against him concerning allegations of demanding money, entering a canteen improperly, assaulting employees and damaging articles.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that an identically situated co-accused had been granted bail. He further submitted that two of his four antecedent cases had been compromised, one had resulted in payment of fine, and he had already been granted bail in the case arising from the same incident, Crime No. 223/2026.

The State opposed bail primarily on the ground of the applicant’s criminal antecedents, while acknowledging that the co-accused had been granted bail.

The applicant had remained in custody since 24 May 2026.

1. 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 period of custody and the anticipated delay in trial.

2. Whether bail ought to be granted on the ground of parity with the identically situated co-accused who had already been granted bail.

3. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents justified refusal of bail despite the grant of bail to the co-accused and in the connected case.

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 factors, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, and the possibility of parity with a co-accused granted bail.

The doctrine of parity requires similarly situated accused persons to receive similar treatment unless distinguishing circumstances justify a different result.

The Court also considered the applicant’s antecedents, but noted that some cases had been compromised or disposed of by payment of fine and that bail had already been granted to him in the connected criminal case arising from the same incident.

The Court balanced the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant’s four antecedents against the circumstances favouring release.

Although the State relied on the antecedents, two cases had been compromised, one had ended on payment of fine, and the remaining antecedent concerned the same incident for which the applicant had already been granted bail.

The charge-sheet had been filed, thereby reducing the immediate need for custodial investigation, and the applicant had remained in custody since 24 May 2026.

Since the identically situated co-accused had been granted bail and the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court found no sufficient basis to deny the applicant similar treatment.

It accordingly exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS and granted bail on the ground of parity.

The applicant, Vishal Chhablani, was directed to be released on bail in Crime No. 222/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further provided for consequences in the event of misuse of bail or non-appearance, including proceedings under the applicable statutory provisions.