Regular bail granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused secured bail and investigation was complete.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 153/2026 registered at Police Station Khamhardih, Raipur, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that jewellery worth approximately ₹90 lakhs, consisting of gold and silver ornaments, gold coins, gold biscuits and cash, was stolen from the complainant’s jewellery shop during the intervening night of 10–11 May 2026 after the locks were cut open.

The applicant’s alleged involvement emerged principally from the memorandum statement of a co-accused, followed by the alleged seizure of silver articles from his possession.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, had no connection with the co-accused, and was entitled to parity with co-accused Kaushal Kumar Sah, who had already been granted bail on similar material.

He also challenged the circumstances of his arrest and seizure, relied on his age, clean antecedents and student status, and submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The State opposed bail on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and the recovery allegedly connecting the applicant with the crime.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the principle of parity with co-accused Kaushal Kumar Sah, who had been granted bail on similar material.

3. Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, young age, period of custody and filing of the charge-sheet justified release on bail notwithstanding the alleged recovery.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the seriousness of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of custody, the likelihood of the trial taking time, and whether further custodial detention was necessary.

The Court also applied the principle of parity, under which an accused similarly situated to a co-accused who has already been granted bail may ordinarily receive comparable treatment, subject to the facts and individual role of the accused.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 317(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court found that the prosecution case against the applicant was primarily based on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, together with the alleged seizure of certain silver articles.

It noted that co-accused Kaushal Kumar Sah, who was allegedly implicated on similar material and from whom similar silver articles had been seized, had already been granted bail by the High Court in MCRC No. 7630 of 2026.

The Court further considered that the applicant was approximately 21 years old, had no criminal antecedents, was pursuing graduation, had remained in custody since 17 May 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed; consequently, continued detention was not required for investigation.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court held that parity, the period of custody, the applicant’s clean antecedents and the likely duration of the trial collectively justified release on bail.

The High Court directed that Sahil Soni be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on every date unless sufficiently excused, to comply with proceedings arising from any failure to appear after proclamation, and to remain personally present at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court directed that a certified copy of the order be supplied to the trial court for compliance.