Anticipatory bail granted on grounds of parity where petitioner is similarly situated to co-accused already on bail.

On July 28, 2023, the complainant, Chhedilal Sahu, alleged that primary accused Ram Narayan Sahu and others defrauded him of Rs. 20,00,000 under the pretext of doubling the investment in the share market within two years.

Consequently, Crime No. 433/2025 was registered under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant, Sampat Kumar Sahu, sought anticipatory bail, contending he was a victim who had himself lost Rs. 56,60,000 to the main accused.

He further argued that the police had previously issued a memo stating no crime was registered against him during a lower court proceeding, and that a similarly situated co-accused, Dharanidhar Patel, had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on April 9, 2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under the principle of parity and the specific facts of the case.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC), governing the grant of anticipatory bail.

It relied on the principle of Parity, which mandates that where the role of an applicant is similar to that of a co-accused who has already been granted bail, the applicant should generally be extended the same benefit to ensure uniformity in judicial discretion.

The court also considered Sections 316(5), 318(4), 318(3), 3(5), and 111 of the BNS, 2023.

The court evaluated the applicant's involvement in light of the materials in the case diary and the nature of the dispute.

A critical factor in the court's reasoning was the previous order in MCRCA No. 527 of 2026, wherein the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to Dharanidhar Patel, a similarly situated co-accused.

The court noted the applicant's defense that he had not received any money from the complainant and was instead a victim of the same scheme.

By applying the rule of parity and observing that custodial interrogation was not shown to be objectively necessary, the court determined that the applicant met the criteria for pre-arrest bail.

It held that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity with the co-accused.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond with one local surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, submission of Aadhaar verification, and refraining from similar future offences.