Anticipatory bail granted on grounds of parity where co-accused was previously released in similar circumstances.

The Applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 84/2026 registered at Police Station Basna

On February 25, 2026, police intercepted two trucks carrying sponge iron. The prosecution alleged that the drivers lacked weighment slips and one invoice lacked an E-way Bill number, leading to charges under Sections 316(4), 317(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340, and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Applicant contended he was not named in the FIR and sought parity with co-accused Abdul Salim, who was previously granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on April 24, 2026

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the nature of the allegations.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the High Court's power to grant direction for bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The Court adhered to the principle of parity in criminal jurisprudence, where a similarly situated accused is granted the same relief as a co-accused already released on bail

the Court considered the procedural requirements for bail, such as the execution of personal bonds, sureties, and mandatory conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or the influence of witnesses

The Court evaluated the Applicant’s role in the context of the alleged financial/regulatory discrepancies regarding the transport of sponge iron. It noted that the Applicant’s name did not appear in the FIR

The primary factor in the Court's reasoning was that a co-accused, Abdul Salim, had already been granted anticipatory bail in the same matter (M.Cr.C(A) No. 619/2026), and the present Applicant was deemed "similarly situated"

Furthermore, the Court observed that the trial was likely to take a "considerable time" for conclusion, justifying the release of the Applicant pending trial. No specific evidence of the Applicant's direct involvement in the fraudulent documentation was highlighted to distinguish his case from the co-accused

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the Applicant be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to five specific conditions: (a) no inducement or threat to witnesses; (b) no prejudice to the trial; (c) regular appearance before the trial court; (d) submission of Aadhaar credentials and full-size photographs; and (e) no involvement in future similar offences