2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Mukesh Manchanda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
MCRC No. 8849 of 2025|MCRC No. 8857 of 2025

In matters of bail, the principle of parity mandates that similarly situated co-accused should receive consistent treatment. When the investigation is advanced and evidence is documentary, custodial detention should not function as pre-trial punishment, provided the accused does not pose a flight risk or threat to the trial process.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 409, 107, 109 - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7, 7-C, 12, 13(1)(a) - Application for regular bail in case of alleged economic offences, conspiracy and financial irregularity - Principles of parity in bail jurisprudence - Duty of Court to balance investigative requirements with constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 - Necessity of custodial detention versus pre-trial punishment.

(B) Bail Jurisprudence - Parity - Article 14 of the Constitution - When similarly situated co-accused, including those with alleged graver roles, have been granted bail, denial of bail to others leads to hostile discrimination and violates the principle of parity. (Paras 58, 60, 64)

(C) Bail Jurisprudence - Custodial Interrogation - Detention during investigation - While gravity of economic offences is a relevant factor, custody cannot be used as a tool for punishment or a substitute for investigation, especially when evidence is documentary and prosecution is mature. (Paras 54, 55, 56)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought regular bail in connection with offences involving a multi-layered economic conspiracy and alleged syndicate operations. The prosecution case relied on information regarding illegal commissions and revenue diversion, with the applicants identified as part of a corporate structure allegedly utilized for such purposes. The applicants had cooperated with the investigation, and the prosecution had filed multiple charge-sheets. Several other co-accused, including those with purportedly more direct involvement, had already been granted bail by superior and coordinate courts.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation was significantly progressed and the incriminating material was largely documentary and electronic in nature, already in the possession of the investigating agencies. The apprehension of tampering or influencing witnesses was found to be generalised and unsupported by concrete evidence. The court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without clear necessity acts as punitive detention.

Issues: Whether the applicants are entitled to bail given the gravity of the economic offences, and whether the principle of parity necessitates the release of the applicants when other similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where there is a lack of evidence demonstrating a unique or graver role of the applicants compared to co-accused already on bail, denying liberty on the basis of pick-and-choose enforcement constitutes hostile discrimination. In the absence of a flight risk or reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, the constitutional mandate of liberty must prevail over the state’s request for continued custodial interrogation.

Result: Bail applications allowed.