Absconding conduct distinguishes an applicant from bailed co-accused, justifying the rejection of a regular bail application.

The applicant, Ganesh Verma, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding Crime No. 552/2024

The prosecution alleged that on December 28, 2022, the applicant and a co-accused (Nilesh Sarvaiya), acting under the instructions of a smuggling gang leader, committed housebreaking using a duplicate key. They allegedly stole medical and educational documents intended to be used as evidence in existing IPC cases

While the incident occurred in 2022/2024 and co-accused were granted bail in mid-2025

the applicant remained at large. He was eventually arrested as an absconder on March 20, 2026, after the charge sheet had already been filed

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused who were previously granted bail.

2. Whether the applicant’s conduct as an absconder disentitles him to discretionary relief under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 439 CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

The legal principles applied involve the assessment of the nature and gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused (specifically the risk of fleeing justice), and the principle of parity in bail matters.

even if co-accused are granted bail, the specific conduct of an applicant—namely being an "absconder"—serves as a distinguishing factor that can override parity

The applicant sought bail primarily on the grounds of parity, noting that co-accused had been granted bail in 2025 and that his trial would likely be prolonged

the Court distinguished the applicant's case from that of the co-accused based on his prior conduct

The Court noted that the applicant had been absconding since the registration of the case in 2024 and was only apprehended in March 2026

the Court reasoned that the applicant’s history of evading the law created a high "likelihood that if he shall be allowed bail... he will abscond again"

The application was dismissed at this stage

The Court clarified that the trial court remains at liberty to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously