Anticipatory bail granted on grounds of parity and the absence of criminal antecedents in a financial dispute.

The applicant, Deepak Kumar Karsh, sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 322/2025 registered at Police Station Balod.

The prosecution alleged that in December 2024, the applicant and three co-accused induced the complainant to pay ₹4,50,000/- for a government teaching job and a further ₹5,50,000/- for a private company registration under a government scheme, totaling a fraud of ₹10,00,000/-.

The applicant contended that the complainant actually joined the company as a "Skill Teacher," receiving a salary for three months, and that the dispute was purely financial/civil.

The FIR was lodged on 08.08.2025, approximately eight months after the initial transaction dated 30.12.2024.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the nature of the transaction and the principle of parity with co-accused.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC), governing the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The court also relied on the principle of parity in bail matters, noting that a similarly situated co-accused, Gauri Shankar Rao, had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same Court in MCRCA No. 61/2026.

Furthermore, the court considered the absence of criminal antecedents as a factor in favor of the applicant.

The Court evaluated the applicant's involvement against the backdrop of the financial nature of the dispute.

It noted that the transactions were conducted through bank and online modes and were linked to business/loan processes, suggesting a potentially bona fide commercial transaction rather than purely criminal intent.

Crucially, the Court observed an unexplained delay of eight months in filing the FIR, which weakened the prosecution's immediate necessity for custodial interrogation.

Applying the rule of parity, the Court found no reason to deny relief to the applicant since the co-accused Gauri Shankar Rao had already been granted bail.

The Court determined that since the applicant has no criminal record and the trial is likely to consume significant time, custodial detention was not warranted at this stage.

The holding was based on the lack of criminal antecedents, the principle of parity, and the civil/financial undertones of the dispute.

The applicant was ordered to comply with standard conditions, including non-inducement of witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, and submission of Aadhaar verification.