Same-allegation FIRs and parity with a bailed co-accused supported grant of regular bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 211/2026, registered for offences under Sections 305(e), 331(4), 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that 25 bags of rice were stolen from a fair-price shop.

Co-accused persons, in their memorandum statements, allegedly said they had sold the stolen grain to the applicant and another person; the applicant was arrested on 10 August 2026.

The applicant argued that the case rested on co-accused statements, that three FIRs had been registered on the same allegations, and that a co-accused facing similar allegations had received bail.

He also relied on his lack of criminal antecedents and the likely delay in trial.

The State opposed bail, citing the allegation that the applicant purchased stolen rice and the existence of two other cases.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in light of the allegations, the basis for his implication, and the circumstances of his detention.

2. Whether the registration of three FIRs on the same allegations, parity with a similarly situated co-accused, and the likely duration of trial supported release on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The Court considered the allegations and material reflected in the case diary, the applicant’s period in judicial custody, the likely time required to conclude the trial, and whether a similarly situated co-accused had been released on bail.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the applicant’s implication was based on co-accused memorandum statements and that three FIRs had been registered against him on the same allegations.

It also considered that a co-accused facing similar allegations had been granted bail, that the applicant had been in custody since 10 August 2026, and that the trial was likely to take time.

Weighing these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the case; requiring conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial; and requiring the applicant to attend every trial date until disposal.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s independent decision on the merits.