Regular bail granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused had already secured bail.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 559/2024 registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, Section 11(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that during the night of 20–21 December 2024, cattle were being loaded into truck No. MP-50-2H-1399 for illegal transportation between Village Jorella and Dhabadih.

The applicant claimed false implication, relied on the fact that co-accused had already been granted anticipatory and regular bail, and submitted that he had been in custody since 5 June 2026 and that trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed the application but conceded that the applicant’s case was identical to that of the co-accused who had been granted bail.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, the period of custody, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who had already been granted anticipatory and regular bail by the High Court.

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents constituted sufficient reason to deny bail despite parity and the likelihood of prolonged trial.

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

It considered the principle of parity, under which an accused whose role and circumstances are materially identical to those of co-accused already granted bail may ordinarily receive similar relief, subject to distinguishing circumstances.

The Court also considered the established bail factors of the period of custody, the probable time required for conclusion of trial, the nature of the accusation, and the possibility of misuse of liberty.

The offences alleged were under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, Section 11(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 325 of the BNS.

Bail conditions may be imposed to secure the accused’s attendance, prevent delay, and preserve the integrity of the trial.

The Court noted that the applicant had seven criminal antecedents, five of which were stated to be pending, but found that the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory and regular bail in orders dated 14 February 2025 and 18 February 2025.

The State did not dispute that the applicant’s case was identical to that of those co-accused.

Considering this parity, the applicant’s custody since 5 June 2026, and the likelihood that the trial would take time, the Court held that the circumstances justified release on bail notwithstanding the antecedents.

The Court therefore exercised its discretion under Section 483 BNSS in favour of the applicant, while imposing conditions relating to attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at critical stages, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The applicant, Umesh Dawde, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS, and to comply with the legal consequences of absence or misuse of bail.

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