Regular bail granted where implication is based solely on co-accused’s memorandum without independent recovery of contraband.

On November 26, 2025, police raided the residence of co-accused Nandkumar Kurre following a tip-off regarding the illegal manufacture of spurious liquor.

The search yielded 8.82 bulk liters of liquor along with manufacturing equipment, including capping machines, stickers, and chemicals.

During investigation, co-accused Sheikh Sajid alleged that the applicant, a resident of Jamshedpur, supplied the raw materials and machinery required for production.

The applicant was arrested on November 30, 2025, and charged under Sections 34(1)(b)(F), 34(2), 35, 49(a), and 59(a) of the C.G. Excise Act and Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant sought regular bail primarily on grounds of parity and lack of direct recovery.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering that no recovery was made from his possession and his implication is based on the memorandum statements of co-accused.

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

It considered the penal provisions of Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which prescribes a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years of imprisonment.

The Court also applied the Doctrine of Parity, ensuring that an accused in a similar legal position as previously bailed co-accused is treated consistently.

Furthermore, it adhered to the principle that pre-trial detention should not be used as a form of punishment when the trial's conclusion is likely to be delayed.

The Court observed that while the prosecution alleged the applicant was a supplier of manufacturing materials, no incriminating substances or illicit liquor were recovered directly from his possession.

His implication rested solely on the memorandum statements of other co-accused, which are of limited evidentiary value.

The Court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in judicial custody since November 2025.

Crucially, the Court found that similarly situated co-accused, Idris Khan and Chotu @ Dinesh Chandravanshi, had already been granted bail by the same Court in MCRC No. 2472/2026 and MCRC No. 2733/2026, respectively.

Given that the charge-sheet was already filed and the trial was expected to take time, the Court reasoned that continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The Court held that the lack of direct recovery, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the ground of parity outweighed the gravity of the allegations.

The bail was granted subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to conditions, including mandatory attendance at trial dates and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The trial court was authorized to treat any default as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Section 269 or 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.