Anticipatory bail follows parity where the applicant’s alleged role is limited and co-accused received bail.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 15/2025 registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant paid consideration for the purchase of land and that a woman impersonating the purported owner, Pushpa Sarathi, executed a sale deed using forged documents.

Several persons allegedly facilitated the transaction and participated in the impersonation and forgery.

The applicant was not named in the FIR.

His alleged role was limited to introducing the parties and accompanying some co-accused persons; he was not alleged to have prepared or signed forged documents, impersonated the landowner, or received any money.

The applicant relied on anticipatory or regular bail orders granted to co-accused persons on the ground of parity.

Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and whose alleged role was confined to introducing the parties and accompanying co-accused persons, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity with co-accused persons who had already been granted anticipatory or regular bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing directions for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The Court also considered the allegations under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The principle of parity requires that similarly placed accused persons receive comparable bail treatment, unless distinguishing circumstances justify a different result.

Bail may accordingly be granted where the applicant’s alleged role is materially less serious or comparable to that of co-accused already enlarged on bail.

The Court further imposed the statutory and standard conditions intended to protect the investigation, ensure the fairness of trial, and secure the applicant’s attendance.

The Court considered the material in the case diary, the nature of the allegations, and the applicant’s limited and indirect role.

Unlike the principal allegations concerning impersonation, preparation of forged documents, and execution of the sale deed, the applicant was not alleged to have forged or signed any document, impersonated the landowner, or received the sale consideration.

The applicant was also not named in the FIR.

Since co-accused Vikram Singh Patel and Anurag Shrivastava had been granted anticipatory bail, and Satish Sinha, Rukunuddin @ Rukku and Devanti Verma had been granted regular bail, the Court found the applicant sufficiently similarly placed to claim parity.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court therefore held that the applicant deserved protection from arrest.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Janardan Netam be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fairness of the trial, requiring appearance before the trial court on every date, mandating submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents, and prohibiting involvement in similar offences in future.