Regular bail is grantable on grounds of parity and absence of criminal antecedents after charge-sheet filing.

The applicant was arrested on November 26, 2025, following a police raid on his residence based on an informant's tip regarding the manufacture of spurious liquor

During the search, police seized 8.82 bulk liters of counterfeit "Romeo Desi Plain Madira," various manufacturing equipment (punching machine, color printer, hologram stickers, empty bottles), and multiple mobile phones from the joint possession of the applicant and three others

The applicant was charged under Sections 34(1)(b), 34(2), 35, 49(a), and 59(a) of the Excise Act and Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The applicant moved this first bail application, asserting false implication and noting that co-accused individuals had already been granted bail

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the duration of pre-trial detention

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs 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 punishment of one year extending to three years

The Court relied on the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, acknowledging that co-accused persons in the same crime (MCRC No. 2472/2026 and MCRC No. 2733/2026) were previously enlarged on bail

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations against the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and the procedural status of the case

The Court noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed

In assessing the necessity of continued incarceration, the Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since November 2025; since the maximum sentence for the primary excise offense is three years, further detention would border on pre-trial punishment

Crucially, the Court found no distinguishing factor to deny bail to the applicant when co-accused Idris Khan and Chotu alias Dinesh Chandravanshi had already been granted relief, thereby invoking the doctrine of parity to ensure consistency in judicial discretion

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: mandatory presence at all trial dates, a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments, and compliance with Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS regarding presence and potential consequences for the abuse of liberty