Regular bail granted to accused without criminal antecedents based on parity with co-accused in arson case.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on December 7, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 527/2025.

On December 1, 2025, two unknown individuals allegedly visited the complainant (President of Hamraj Party) to discuss illegal liquor sales.

Later that night, the complainant’s car was set on fire in his garage.

The applicant was implicated in the incident for offenses involving arson and conspiracy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

While the investigation was ongoing and the charge-sheet had not yet been filed, the applicant argued for bail citing the principle of parity, as co-accused persons had already been granted relief.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering his period of detention and the prior release of identically situated co-accused persons.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The reasoning was grounded in the principle of parity, noting that co-accused persons Abhishek Choure and Ashwani Kumar Dadsena were granted bail in MCRC Nos. 1069 and 811 of 2026.

The court considered the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and the mandate under Section 269 and 209 of the BNS regarding attendance during trial and consequences of non-appearance.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense—specifically the setting of the complainant's vehicle on fire—against the applicant’s personal circumstances and procedural history.

Although the State opposed the bail on the grounds that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed and the nature of the crime was serious, the Court emphasized that the applicant had been in custody since December 7, 2025.

The Court primarily relied on the fact that other identically situated co-accused had already been released by the same Court in January and February 2026.

In the absence of criminal antecedents and given that the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were met to ensure the applicant's presence during trial.

The holding answered the issue in the affirmative, granting relief based on the period of detention and parity.

The applicant was ordered to comply with specific conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence at trial stages such as the framing of charges (Section 351 BNSS), and warnings regarding proceedings under Section 209 BNS and Section 84 BNSS for any default in appearance.