Regular bail granted to alleged mediator in jewelry theft case on grounds of parity and filing of charge-sheet.

The applicant, Badal Das, filed a first bail application seeking regular bail following his arrest on November 9, 2025, in connection with a burglary at a jewelry shop.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of October 31, 2025, unknown persons broke into a shop owned by Ajay Kumar Soni, stealing gold and silver ornaments and ₹75,000 in cash.

The applicant was implicated as an alleged mediator between the thieves and the purchasers of the stolen property.

While the State opposed bail citing one previous criminal antecedent, the applicant contended that no incriminating articles were seized from him and that he was being held solely on the basis of a co-accused's memorandum statement.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and the principle of parity with co-accused.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant bail.

It also considered Sections 305 (Theft), 331(4) (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking), 317(2, 4, 5) (Receiving stolen property), 3(5) (Common intention), and 111 (Organized crime) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Procedural compliance was anchored in Sections 209, 269, 351, and 84 of the BNSS regarding trial attendance and consequences of absconding.

The court also relied on the principle of parity, noting the prior grant of bail to co-accused Roshan Soni in MCRC No. 221/2026.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the applicant's period of incarceration and the progress of the investigation.

It noted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since November 9, 2025, and that the charge-sheet has already been filed, meaning the custodial interrogation is complete.

The Court took significant note of the fact that a co-accused, Roshan Soni, whose case was on similar footing, had been granted bail by the same Court on February 24, 2026.

Despite the State’s objection regarding a prior criminal antecedent, the Court observed that the trial—triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC)—would likely take considerable time to conclude.

Consequently, the Court found it fit to exercise its discretion in favor of the applicant.

The holding is conditioned upon the applicant's strict adherence to trial proceedings, including prohibitions against seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandates for personal appearance during framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS, and warnings that failure to appear could trigger proceedings under Section 209 BNS and Section 84 BNSS.