Anticipatory bail granted on grounds of parity where similarly situated co-accused was previously enlarged.

The applicant sought his first anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 470/2025 involving offenses under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 318(3), 3(5), and 111 of the Bhartiya Nyayak Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecution alleged the applicant's involvement in a fraud orchestrated by the main accused, Ramnarayan Sahu.

The applicant contended he was a victim who had paid Rs. 55,16,100 to the main accused and was implicated solely based on a memorandum statement given by the co-accused while in custody.

The applicant further highlighted that a similarly situated co-accused, Dharanidhar Patel, had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under the principle of parity and the lack of specific allegations by the complainant

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

The court relied on the principle of Parity, noting that since a similarly situated co-accused (Dharanidhar Patel) had been granted bail in MCRCA No. 527/2026, the current applicant was entitled to the same benefit

The court also considered the evidentiary value of memorandum statements and the necessity of custodial interrogation in financial disputes

The court evaluated the facts and circumstances, noting the nature of the dispute and the material on record.

It observed that the applicant claimed to be an investor/victim who had even lodged a prior complaint against the main accused.

Crucially, the court found that the applicant's role was on a "similar footing" to that of co-accused Dharanidhar Patel, who had already secured anticipatory bail on April 9, 2026.

The court noted that the investigation against the main accused was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, rendering the applicant’s custodial interrogation unnecessary, especially since the complainant had made no specific allegations against him.

The relief was granted subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition against committing similar offenses in the future.

The holding was based on the "benefit of parity" with the co-accused.