Regular bail granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused were already enlarged on bail.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 249/2026 registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that 65 bags of paddy were stolen from Siddhi Vinayak Rice Mill on the night of 14–15 June 2026.

During investigation, co-accused Raja Lahre allegedly disclosed the involvement of the applicant and other persons, and the accused allegedly stated that the stolen paddy had been sold to Rakesh Sahu, from whom it was subsequently traced to Kanha Rice Mill.

The applicant had been in custody since 16 June 2026.

He relied on parity with co-accused Veersingh Banjare, Ajay Patle and Laxmi Kumar Sinha, who had already been granted bail by the High Court.

The State opposed the application but acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the filing of the charge-sheet, his period of custody and the anticipated delay in conclusion of trial.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with similarly placed co-accused who had already been granted regular bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The Court applied the principle of parity, under which an accused whose role and circumstances are comparable to those of co-accused already granted bail may ordinarily receive similar relief, subject to relevant distinctions.

The Court also considered the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration and the likelihood that the trial would take additional time as relevant factors in determining whether continued detention was justified.

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

The Court noted that three co-accused had already been granted regular bail in connected proceedings and found no distinguishing circumstance warranting different treatment of the applicant.

It further took into account that the charge-sheet had been submitted, the applicant had remained in custody since 16 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take some time to conclude.

Applying the principle of parity together with these procedural circumstances, the Court held that the applicant’s continued detention was not necessary at that stage.

The applicant’s antecedents were noted in the submissions but did not prevent grant of bail on the facts presented.

Bail was granted principally on the ground of parity, coupled with the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody and the likely delay in trial.

The release was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning non-appearance, 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.