Regular bail granted on parity where similarly situated co-accused had already been enlarged on bail.

An agreement was executed between the Blast Furnace Department of Bhilai Steel Plant and R.D.K. Industries for transporting flue dust.

On 26 May 2026, information was received that vehicles bearing registration Nos. CG-04-QT-8797 and CG-08-AW-1475 were allegedly transporting iron scrap along with flue dust.

During an inspection conducted on 27 May 2026, the vehicles were allegedly found carrying iron scrap in an unauthorized manner.

On the complainant’s report, Crime No. 277/2026 was registered at Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg, for offences under Sections 303(2), 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The applicant was arrested on 29 May 2026.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that he had been implicated only on the basis of a co-accused’s memorandum, that no incriminating material had been seized from him, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the bail application but did not dispute that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail.

The charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No. 277/2026 for alleged offences under Sections 303(2), 317(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds that he had no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet had been filed, and similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail.

3. What conditions should govern the applicant’s release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.

In determining entitlement to bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the procedural stage of the case, the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the principle of parity with similarly situated co-accused who had already been granted bail.

Bail was made subject to statutory and court-imposed conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent adjournment of evidence, and guard against misuse of the liberty granted.

The Court considered the allegations concerning the unauthorized transportation of iron scrap and the overall circumstances of the prosecution case.

Although the State characterized the allegations as serious, it did not dispute that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail.

The Court found the applicant’s case fit for bail because the charge-sheet had already been filed, he had no criminal antecedents, and co-accused persons had received bail in the proceedings cited by the applicant.

Without recording a final determination on the merits, the Court concluded that continued custody was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to safeguards ensuring his attendance during trial and preventing abuse of bail.

Mithen Markam was directed to be released in Crime No. 277/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him, inter alia, not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation and 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.

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