Anticipatory bail granted on ground of parity despite applicant’s eight prior criminal antecedents.

The applicant filed a first anticipatory bail application regarding Crime No. 16/2026 involving offenses under Sections 140(2), 115(2), 296-B, 191(2), 191(3), 127(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant alleged that on January 22, 2026, the applicant and five other accused, armed with sticks and an axe, forcibly abducted the complainant and one Sunita Meena (who was traveling with the complainant of her own will), assaulted them, and threatened to kill them.

The applicant contended that he was a family member of Sunita and was merely attempting to protect her and her minor children from being misled by the complainant.

Furthermore, three co-accused (Sonu Meena, Mor Singh, and Khoob Singh) had already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench on March 10, 2026.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS (Section 438 Cr.P.C.) based on the principle of parity and the specific facts of the case.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), governing the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The Court also invoked the principle of parity, which suggests that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail.

The substantive charges were evaluated under the relevant penal provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court evaluated the totality of the circumstances, balancing the gravity of the allegations against the applicant's defense that the incident was a domestic intervention to protect a family member and her children.

Although the State counsel opposed the bail citing eight criminal antecedents of the applicant, the Court placed significant weight on the fact that other co-accused individuals facing the same allegations had already been granted bail by the Court.

The Court reasoned that since parity was established and the applicant had undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and trial, the benefit of anticipatory bail was warranted without a detailed commentary on the merits of the case.

The holding is subject to several conditions: the applicant must cooperate with the investigation, refrain from threatening witnesses, not leave India without permission, and mark his presence at the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month until the trial concludes.