Regular bail may be granted on parity where an identically placed co-accused has been released.

The applicant was arrested on 24 July 2026 in connection with Crime No. 207/2026 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, for an offence under Section 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). Acting on secret information, the police allegedly seized 198 tablets of Nitrazepam IP/Nitrotion-10, weighing 112.86 grams, from the applicant at an open place, alleging possession for sale.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), asserting false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody, and parity with co-accused Mahavir Jain, who had already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench. The State opposed the application but acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicant’s case was identical to that of the bailed co-accused.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the offence under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Mahavir Jain, who had already been granted bail in the same case.

3. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, period of custody, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of trial justified the grant of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail, and considered the allegation under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act concerning illegal possession of psychotropic substances.

The Court applied the principle of parity, under which an accused whose role and circumstances are identical to those of a co-accused already granted bail may ordinarily receive similar treatment, absent distinguishing circumstances. The Court also considered relevant bail factors, including filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, length of custody, and the likelihood of delay in trial. The Court relied upon the Coordinate Bench’s order dated 18 August 2026 granting bail to co-accused Mahavir Jain in MCRC No. 7001 of 2026.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 24 July 2026, and he had no criminal antecedents in Odisha or Chhattisgarh.

Most significantly, the State did not dispute that the applicant’s case was identical to that of co-accused Mahavir Jain, who had already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench. In the absence of any distinguishing circumstance and considering that the trial was likely to take time, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to appear personally on specified stages including opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with the consequences prescribed for absence or misuse of bail. A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.