Regular bail granted on parity where charge-sheet remained pending and prolonged trial was likely.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 187/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, one of the owners of Shri Ram Transport Company, discovered that employees had prepared duplicate bill vouchers bearing identical numbers for different vehicles, thereby authorising fraudulent payments. The vouchers were allegedly prepared in the names of six persons, including the applicant, causing a wrongful loss of approximately ₹32,00,000 to the company.

The applicant claimed false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, and parity with co-accused persons who had been granted anticipatory and regular bail. He further submitted that he had been in custody since 29 June 2026, that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed, and that the trial would take time.

The application was the applicant’s first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the nature of the allegations, the period of custody, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the non-filing of the charge-sheet?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the principle of parity with co-accused who had been granted anticipatory or regular bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail in appropriate cases.

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the stage of investigation, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 60 of the BNS.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 29 June 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

It also considered that co-accused persons had been granted anticipatory bail and regular bail in connected proceedings, supporting the applicant’s plea of parity.

The Court noted that the State’s earlier submission regarding filing of the charge-sheet in the co-accused’s bail matter had been incorrect, and treated the continuing non-filing of the charge-sheet as a relevant circumstance.

Balancing the nature and gravity of the allegations against the applicant’s custody, clean antecedents, parity, and the probable delay in trial, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified at that stage.

The Court directed that Kamal Basod be released on 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 requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning proclamation and non-appearance, 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.

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