Regular bail granted on parity where co-accused secured bail and trial was likely to be prolonged.

The applicant, Irfan Ali, filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 219/2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 126(2), 109, 309(6), 311, 61(2), 310, 111 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 17 February 2026, a jeweller was intercepted while returning home with gold ornaments and cash. The assailants allegedly collided with his vehicle, assaulted him with firearms and an iron rod, and robbed approximately 2.2 kilograms of jewellery, additional gold and ₹3,50,000 in cash.

During investigation, the applicant was arrayed as an accused allegedly involved in the offence and the related conspiracy; additional offences under Sections 61(2), 111 and 238 of the BNS were also added.

The applicant contended that his name was absent from the FIR, no test identification parade was conducted, he had been in custody since 19 February 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and co-accused Karim Khan had already been granted bail by the High Court.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had three criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the completion of investigation, and the period of custody?

Whether the grant of bail to co-accused Karim Khan justified extending similar treatment to the applicant despite the State’s objection based on his criminal antecedents?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

The Court considered the established bail factors, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of incarceration, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the probable duration of trial, and parity with a similarly placed co-accused.

The substantive offences alleged were under Sections 126(2), 109, 309(6), 311, 61(2), 310, 111 and 238 of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Bail was granted subject to conditions requiring attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages of trial, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 19 February 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

It also gave weight to the fact that co-accused Karim Khan had been granted regular bail in the same case, thereby supporting the applicant’s plea for parity.

Although the State pointed to three criminal antecedents, the Court, after considering the overall circumstances, the nature of the allegations and the stage of the proceedings, concluded that continued detention was not warranted at that stage.

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

Irfan Ali was ordered to be released in Crime No. 219/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The order was subject to conditions requiring him to avoid unnecessary adjournments, remain present before the trial court, personally attend the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and face appropriate proceedings in the event of absence or misuse of bail.