Anticipatory bail granted on grounds of parity with similarly situated co-accused.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 470/2025 for offenses involving fraud and criminal breach of trust under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), and 111 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged the applicant's involvement in a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the main accused, Ramnaranyan Sahu.

The applicant contended he was a victim/investor who paid ₹55,16,100 to the co-accused and was implicated solely on the basis of a memorandum statement given by the main accused.

The State opposed the application, citing four criminal antecedents against the applicant.

However, the applicant argued parity, noting that co-accused Ranu Dhrw and others had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS based on the principle of parity and the nature of the evidence against him.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

The Court further relied on the judicial principle of Parity, which suggests that when co-accused persons with similar roles or circumstances are granted bail, the same relief should be extended to the applicant to ensure uniformity in judicial discretion.

The Court examined the applicant's contention that his involvement was only suggested through the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which carries limited evidentiary weight.

While the State raised concerns regarding the applicant’s four criminal antecedents, the Court prioritized the fact that other co-accused persons, specifically Ranu Dhrw in MCRCA No. 250/2026, had been granted anticipatory bail by the same Court.

After considering the materials on record and the fact that the investigation against the main accused was already completed with a charge sheet filed, the Court found that the applicant’s custodial interrogation was not necessitated.

Consequently, the Court determined that the ground of parity outweighed the State's objections regarding antecedents in this specific context.

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to several conditions: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) cooperation with the trial; (c) regular appearance before the trial court; (d) submission of Aadhaar credentials; and (e) abstaining from committing similar offenses in the future.