Accused entitled to regular bail on grounds of parity when co-accused are released in identical circumstances.

On November 17, 2025, the applicant, along with co-accused individuals, allegedly entered the complainant’s residence by posing as fake officials of the Income Tax Department.

They claimed to be searching for ₹200 crores of "black money," purportedly conducted a raid, seized a sum of money, and fled the scene in multiple vehicles.

Following a written report, FIR Crime No. 327/2025 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, for offenses involving cheating, impersonation, and conspiracy.

The applicant was arrested on December 16, 2025.

After the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant sought regular bail, citing that three similarly situated co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the High Court in March 2026.

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The primary legal principle applied was the Doctrine of Parity, which dictates that if co-accused persons with identical roles and allegations have been granted bail, the same relief should be extended to the applicant unless distinguishing factors exist.

The court also considered the penal provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 204(2) (impersonating a public servant), 319(2) (cheating by personation), 331(3) (house-trespass), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 3(5) (joint liability).

The Court analyzed the applicant's prayer for bail by weighing the gravity of the offense against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the applicant had been in custody since December 16, 2025, and that the investigation was complete, as evidenced by the filing of the charge-sheet.

The Court emphasized that the State did not dispute that three other co-accused—Jitendra Baghel, Sanjay Kumar Ramteke, and Vivek @ Vicky Korsewada—whose roles were identical to the applicant, had been granted bail by the same Court earlier that month.

Given the lack of previous criminal antecedents and the fact that the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court determined that the applicant’s case was identical to those of the co-accused already released.

Consequently, the Court found no reason to deny bail when the primary investigation was concluded and parity was established.

The holding was based primarily on the ground of parity and the completion of the charge-sheet.

The release was made subject to several conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek adjournments during witness testimony [para. 7(i)]; (ii) mandatory appearance before the trial court under penalty of Section 269 BNS [para. 7(ii)]; (iii) potential proceedings under Section 209 BNS for misuse of liberty [para. 7(iii)]; and (iv) mandatory personal presence during charge framing and statements under Section 351 BNSS [para. 7(iv)].