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

The applicant, Santosh Singh Thakur, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 42/2026 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 316(3), 61, 238, 249, 316(5), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The prosecution case originated from Crime No. 96/2025, registered on a complaint alleging that unknown persons were illegally extracting LPG gas from capsule trucks and refilling it into smaller cylinders at a farmhouse within the jurisdiction of Police Station Singhoda.

The applicant claimed false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, and parity with co-accused Manish Kumar Choudhary, Ajay Yadav, Pankaj Chandrakar, Nikhil Vaishnav and Sarthak Singh Thakur, who had already been granted bail by the High Court.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed and that similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail.

The applicant had remained in custody since 26 May 2026.

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

The Court applied the principle of parity, under which an accused similarly situated to co-accused already enlarged on bail may ordinarily receive equivalent relief, absent distinguishing circumstances.

It also considered relevant bail factors, including the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

The Court found that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the immediate need for continued custodial investigation.

The applicant had been in custody since 26 May 2026, while the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Most significantly, the Court noted that the co-accused—whose circumstances were treated as comparable—had already been granted bail in earlier orders, and the State was unable to dispute that fact.

Applying the principle of parity along with the ordinary considerations relevant to bail, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted.

Bail was granted primarily on the ground of parity, along with the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody and the expected delay in trial.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning his absence or 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.

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