Anticipatory bail granted in a murder case based on parity and circumstantial nature of evidence.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 138 of 2025 (Police Station Seondha) involving the death of Brajmohan, whose body was discovered by his family on October 5, 2025.

A post-mortem confirmed the death as homicidal due to strangulation.

Initially registered against unknown persons, the applicant was later implicated during the investigation based on suspicion and witness statements.

The applicant contended that the evidence was purely circumstantial, lacked a direct link to the crime, and noted that co-accused Brijendra Pironiya and Kaptan Singh had already been granted regular bail.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the principle of parity.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, concerning the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail.

The substantive charges involved Section 103 (Punishment for murder) and Section 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court also considered the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, evaluating the applicant's status relative to co-accused who had already secured bail.

The court examined the prosecution's case which rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and subsequent witness statements rather than direct eyewitness accounts.

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed that the applicant's name was absent from the initial FIR and his implication was based on "vague" and "omnibus" statements during the investigation.

The court found that the chain of circumstances appeared incomplete with "several broken links".

Crucially, the court weighed the fact that the alleged main accused and another co-accused had already been granted regular bail.

Since the applicant is a permanent resident with deep roots in society and custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary, the court concluded that the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence was minimal.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, not influencing witnesses, and not leaving the country without permission.

Under the principle of parity and the circumstantial nature of the evidence, the court found the applicant deserved protection from arrest.