Anticipatory bail granted based on parity with co-accused and absence of prior criminal antecedents.

The applicant, a 63-year-old bank employee, filed a first anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest for offences including cheating and forgery

The prosecution alleged that in 2017, the applicant introduced the complainant to co-accused Nikesh Pandey for a 7-year life insurance policy

The complainant regularly deposited annual cash installments of approximately ₹50,000 with the co-accused and occasionally the applicant

Upon the policy's completion, the complainant discovered that only two installments had been recorded, leading to allegations of a fraudulent scheme

The applicant contended that his involvement was limited to referring the complainant to the insurance agents and noted that the primary accused individuals had already been granted regular bail

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the principle of parity and his specific role in the alleged offence

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest

The underlying charges involved Sections 420 (cheating), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a banker), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document as genuine), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code

The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the applicant's specific involvement, noting that the "main allegation" was directed toward co-accused Nikesh Kumar Pandey, who had already secured regular bail from the same Court

The Court took into account the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and his status as a permanent resident, which mitigated the risk of him absconding

It further reasoned that because the investigation and subsequent trial were likely to consume significant time, and considering the materials available on record, the applicant’s custodial interrogation was not necessitated

The Court applied the principle of parity indirectly by acknowledging the bail granted to co-accused persons while assessing the applicant's relatively limited role of directing the complainant to the primary accused

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer

This relief was conditioned upon the applicant not inducing or threatening witnesses, appearing regularly before the trial court, submitting Aadhaar verification, and refraining from future similar offences