Regular bail granted where implication rests solely on inadmissible co-accused memorandum statement and investigation stands completed.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on February 9, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 57/2026

The prosecution alleged that on February 9, 2025 (as per the report), police received information regarding illegal prostitution activities at “Sunrise Spa and Salon,” located within Hotel Trinity Grand, Raigarh

The applicant was implicated under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The applicant contended that he was neither the manager nor an employee of the hotel, but a friend of the owner overseeing civil construction work, evidenced by invoices and appointment orders of the actual General Manager.

He further argued that his implication was based solely on the inadmissible memorandum statement of a co-accused and that no incriminating material was seized from him.

The investigation was completed, and a charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the completion of the investigation and the nature of the evidence against him?

The Court considered the provisions of Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Substantive charges were noted under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which pertain to keeping a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, procuring/inducing for prostitution, and prostitution in public places.

The Court also applied the principle of parity in bail matters, referencing the previous grant of bail to a co-accused under similar circumstances.

Procedural compliance during bail was linked to Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offences alongside the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation was concluded and the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court.

A critical factor in the court’s reasoning was the principle of parity, as a co-accused, Devendra Singh Malhotra, had already been granted bail by the same Court in MCRC No. 1939 of 2026.

The Court took cognizance of the applicant’s period of judicial custody since February 9, 2026, and observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

The Court implicitly found that continued incarceration was unnecessary given these factors and the nature of the evidence, which the applicant argued was limited to a co-accused's statement.

The Court ordered the applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments during evidence; (ii) he must appear on all trial dates or face proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS; (iii) any misuse of liberty or failure to appear after a proclamation would trigger proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS; and (iv) he must be present personally for specific trial milestones like the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.