Regular bail granted where co-accused were released and no criminal antecedents existed despite pending trial.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 67/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on March 21, 2025, the applicant and another individual deceived the complainant into believing they could provide cheap asbestos sheets.

After obtaining a bundle of Rs. 500/- notes from the complainant, the accused fled the scene.

The applicant was arrested on April 19, 2025, primarily based on a memorandum statement.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, citing a lack of criminal antecedents and the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of allegations, the period of incarceration, and the principle of parity with co-accused.

The court's decision was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC), which provides the High Court with discretionary power to grant regular bail.

It also considered the substantive offences under Sections 309(3) (theft/cheating by personation), 309(4), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court applied the principle of parity, noting the prior grant of bail to a co-accused in MCRC No. 8419/2025, and considered the absence of criminal antecedents as a favorable factor for the exercise of judicial discretion.

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations against the applicant's clean criminal record and the duration of his detention (since April 19, 2025).

The Chief Justice noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, minimizing the risk of tampering with evidence at this stage.

Furthermore, the Court observed that a co-accused had been granted bail on October 17, 2025, thus invoking the principle of parity.

Given that the trial was likely to take a significant amount of time to conclude, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial proceedings.

The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that the applicant's clean record and the completion of the investigation (filing of charge-sheet) justified his release.

The grant of bail was made subject to specific conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Mandatory attendance at trial under threat of Section 269 BNS.

And the risk of proceedings under Section 209 BNS for misuse of liberty.