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

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after being arrested in Crime No. 595/2024 registered at Ambikapur Police Station, District Surguja, for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, during an inquiry directed by the Collector, four purported Board of Revenue orders were found to be materially different from the original orders and to have been tampered with or fabricated; the Tehsildar thereafter lodged the complaint leading to registration of the FIR.

The applicant denied involvement in forging or manipulating the documents and claimed that he had been deceived by Mohammad Dastgir Ansari, whom he believed to be an Advocate and who had undertaken to conduct the revenue proceedings for payment of approximately ₹3 lakhs.

The applicant relied on his age of 63 years, absence of criminal antecedents, alleged lack of knowledge of the forgery, grant of bail to co-accused, filing of the charge-sheet, and his custody since 20 July 2026.

The State opposed the application without, as recorded in the order, advancing detailed reasons.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the material in the case diary.

Whether parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail, together with the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, custody, filing of the charge-sheet and the likely delay in conclusion of trial, justified release on bail.

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

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the principle of parity with similarly placed co-accused who had been granted bail.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and he had remained in judicial custody since 20 July 2026.

It further took into account that Mohammad Iqbal, Meena Gupta and another co-accused had already been granted bail, making the principle of parity relevant.

Although the allegations concerned fabrication and use of revenue orders, the Court assessed the bail application at the pre-trial stage and noted that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On the cumulative consideration of the allegations, parity, completed investigation, absence of antecedents, custody and probable delay, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on each date fixed by the trial court, 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 also authorised consequential proceedings in accordance with law in the event of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.