The Chhattisgarh High Court’s grant of anticipatory bail in this case underscores a critical procedural safeguard: the individual right to bail cannot be mechanically denied merely because a co-accused’s earlier application was rejected. The Court’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s intervention signals a firm reiteration of personalized judicial scrutiny in bail matters under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Priyesh Kumar, fears arrest in connection with Crime No. 78/2025 registered at Police Station Amanaka, Raipur. The prosecution alleges that he, along with co-accused, destroyed a temple statue, assaulted complainant Manish Verma, and attempted to induce religious conversion. The offences invoked are Sections 298, 299, 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968.
Procedural History
- 2025: Crime No. 78/2025 registered against applicant and co-accused Rajesh Sharma.
- April 9, 2025: Co-accused Rajesh Sharma’s anticipatory bail application (MCRCA No. 492/2025) was rejected by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
- October 17, 2025: The Supreme Court allowed SLP (Crl.) No. 9694/2025 filed by Rajesh Sharma, setting aside the High Court’s rejection.
- January 27, 2026: Applicant Priyesh Kumar filed the present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNS.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail on the grounds that the Supreme Court’s reversal of his co-accused’s bail denial establishes a legal precedent warranting similar relief for him, given identical factual and legal circumstances.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the rejection of anticipatory bail for a co-accused, later overturned by the Supreme Court, obliges the High Court to reconsider the bail plea of another accused facing identical charges under the same FIR.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the Supreme Court’s intervention in Rajesh Sharma’s case rendered the High Court’s prior rejection legally untenable. He contended that Section 482 of the BNS permits anticipatory bail where the circumstances justify it, and that the Supreme Court’s order constitutes binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. He emphasized that the applicant’s circumstances are indistinguishable from those of the co-accused, and that denial of bail would violate the principle of equal treatment under law.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not dispute the factual accuracy of the Supreme Court’s order or the similarity of the cases. However, it opposed bail on the grounds that the offences involved serious allegations of religious incitement and destruction of religious property, which, in its view, warranted custodial investigation. It did not advance any new factual or legal distinction between the applicant and the co-accused.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the doctrine of stare decisis and the binding nature of Supreme Court rulings under Article 141. It noted that the Supreme Court had already found the rejection of bail for Rajesh Sharma to be legally flawed, thereby implicitly rejecting the High Court’s earlier reasoning. The Court held that the same factual matrix, identical charges, and identical legal defects in the prior denial rendered the applicant’s situation legally indistinguishable.
"The Supreme Court’s order allowing the SLP is not merely a procedural intervention - it is a substantive determination that the conditions for denial of anticipatory bail were not met in this case. To deny the same relief to another accused under the same FIR would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14."
The Court further emphasized that anticipatory bail is not a privilege but a procedural right under Section 482 BNS, and must be assessed on the merits of each individual’s circumstances - not by mechanical application of prior adverse orders. The absence of any new incriminating material against the applicant, coupled with the Supreme Court’s reversal, made continued detention unjustified.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that anticipatory bail must be granted where the Supreme Court has overturned the rejection of a co-accused’s bail application under identical circumstances. The applicant was released on bail subject to specified conditions, including non-interference with witnesses and appearance before the trial court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Anticipatory Bail Is Individual, Not Collective
- Practitioners must argue that each accused’s bail plea must be decided on their own facts, even if co-accused were previously denied bail.
- A prior rejection of bail for a co-accused is not a binding precedent against another accused unless the facts differ materially.
- If the Supreme Court reverses a co-accused’s denial, the same reasoning must be applied to others similarly situated.
Supreme Court Orders Bind Lower Courts in Bail Matters
- Lower courts cannot ignore or distinguish Supreme Court orders that overturn bail denials on procedural or substantive grounds.
- The reversal of a co-accused’s bail denial constitutes a judicial finding that the original grounds for denial were legally unsound.
- This creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of bail for other accused in the same FIR unless new evidence emerges.
Procedural Fairness Requires Consistency
- Denying bail to one accused while granting it to another under identical circumstances violates Article 14.
- Courts must ensure parity in bail decisions within the same case to avoid arbitrariness.
- Advocates should cite this judgment to challenge inconsistent bail orders in multi-accused cases, especially where the Supreme Court has intervened.
