Regular bail granted on parity where co-accused secured bail and applicant had no criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 32/2026, registered at Excise Circle, Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, for offences under Sections 34(2), 36 and 38(d) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

Acting on information, the Excise Circle allegedly searched the residential premises of co-accused Murli Tandon and seized two plastic sacks containing 190 and 170 quarters of country liquor, totalling approximately 64.8 bulk litres, along with articles allegedly used for preparing liquor.

The applicant and the co-accused were arrested on 10 June 2026.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, that the liquor was not seized from his conscious and exclusive possession, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that he had remained in custody since 10 June 2026.

It was also submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed and that co-accused Murli Tandon had already been granted bail by the High Court in MCRC No. 6599 of 2026, by order dated 18 August 2026.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the nature of the allegations, the alleged seizure, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the period of custody?

2. Whether the grant of bail to the similarly situated co-accused and the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents justified extending the benefit of bail to the applicant on the principle of parity?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 34(2), 36 and 38(d) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material placed before it, the applicant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The bail order was made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court found that the applicant had been in custody since 10 June 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the State did not dispute that he had no criminal antecedents.

The alleged seizure was made from the premises of co-accused Murli Tandon, and the applicant argued that there was no seizure from his conscious and exclusive possession.

Most significantly, the co-accused had already been granted regular bail by the High Court, and the State did not dispute that fact.

Considering these circumstances, together with the nature of the allegations and the principle of parity, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted at the bail stage.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case.

The Court directed that Netram Dahariya be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him to avoid unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, remain present before the trial court on every date either personally or through counsel, appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and comply with the consequences prescribed in case of absence or misuse of bail.

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