Regular bail granted to accused on principle of parity with similarly situated co-accused.

The complainant reported that between August 18 and August 20, 2025, while his family was away, his residence was broken into

Upon returning, he discovered scattered household items and broken cupboards, with several gold and silver ornaments missing, including necklaces, rings, and silver idols

Consequently, FIR No. 362/2025 was registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur.

The applicant was arrested on August 21, 2025, for alleged involvement in the theft and house-breaking

The applicant moved for regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, no seizure was made from his personal possession, he had no criminal antecedents, and a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS based on the principle of parity and the stage of the trial.

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

The substantive offences were considered under Sections 331(4) (lurking house-trespass or house-breaking), 305(1) (theft in a dwelling house), and 317(2) (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

The Court also relied on the principle of parity, citing its previous order in Usha Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh (M.Cr.C. No. 1066/2026), which established that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations involving house-breaking and the theft of valuable ornaments against the applicant's custody status and the progress of the legal proceedings

It noted the applicant's submission that the charge-sheet had been filed and that no material established his "conscious or knowing involvement" in dealing with stolen property

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that a co-accused, Usha Rathore, had been granted regular bail on March 3, 2026

Applying the principle of parity, the Court reasoned that since the applicant was similarly situated to the co-accused who was already at liberty, and considering the trial was likely to take time, the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant’s undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to remain present for all critical trial stages, including the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail