Regular bail granted to accused in theft case on grounds of parity and lack of criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Harish Banjara, was arrested on August 29, 2025, in connection with a theft at Rajlaxmi Jewellers in village Panthpiplai, Ujjain.

Following a secret tip, silver and gold jewellery and an Eeco car were recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and three co-accused.

This is the applicant's second bail application filed after the completion of the investigation and the submission of the final report.

The applicant sought parity with co-accused Subhash Sen and Kamal, who had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the principle of parity and the completion of the investigation.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is necessary given his socio-economic status and lack of criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

Section 305(a) (theft) and Section 331(4) (house-breaking/lurking house-trespass) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The principle of judicial parity, noting that similarly situated co-accused were already enlarged on bail.

Section 346 of the BNSS (vires Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the examination of witnesses to ensure the presence of the accused during trial.

The court noted that the investigation was complete and the final report had been submitted, meaning the veracity of the allegations would now be determined at trial.

It found that the applicant, a 22-year-old labourer with no prior criminal record, was unlikely to flee from justice or tamper with evidence.

The court specifically highlighted that co-accused Subhash Sen and Kamal had been granted bail, and the applicant’s case was identical in nature.

Given the applicant's socio-economic responsibilities toward his aged parents, the court determined that further incarceration served no compelling purpose.

The court held that the order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial, provided the applicant complies with all stipulated conditions including regular court attendance, refraining from committing similar offences, and not influencing witnesses.