Anticipatory bail granted on parity grounds where no specific overt act is attributed to the accused.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 317 of 2025 at Police Station Badoni, District Datia, involving offences under Sections 110, 324(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

According to the FIR lodged by the complainant, Deepak, on December 24, 2025, several individuals fired gunshots outside his residence at midnight, damaging the wall of the house and the windshield of a Baleno car

While co-accused Lalu Kamariya was specifically alleged to have fired a country-made pistol, the applicant was not named in the FIR and was subsequently implicated based on the memorandum of a co-accused

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated due to enmity and that no firearm was recovered from him

The State opposed the application, citing the applicant’s three criminal antecedents

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on the lack of specific overt acts and the principle of parity

2. Whether the existence of criminal antecedents is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail when the applicant was not named in the FIR and no recovery was made

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the discretionary power of the High Court to grant anticipatory bail

It considered the penal provisions of Sections 110 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide), 324(4) (Mischief), and 3(5) (Common intention) of the BNS, alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act regarding the illegal use of firearms

The court also relied on the principle of Parity, noting that a co-ordinate Bench had granted similar relief to co-accused Jitendra Singh Kamariya in M.Cr.C. No. 5463/2026

The court evaluated the applicant's role in the alleged incident, noting that he was not identified in the initial FIR and his involvement rested solely on a co-accused’s memorandum statement

The court found merit in the defense’s argument that identifying individuals from a terrace at midnight in insufficient light is highly doubtful

Furthermore, the court observed that no specific overt act of firing was attributed to the applicant, placing him on a "better footing" than co-accused who had already been granted bail

While the State argued that the applicant's three criminal antecedents justified a rejection, the court determined that the material on record did not suggest a risk of the applicant fleeing from justice

Consequently, the court held that the lack of incriminating recoveries and the absence of a specific role outweighed the State's objections

The holding was based primarily on the ground of parity with the co-accused and the absence of prima facie evidence of a specific overt act

The relief was made subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, attendance at trial, and a prohibition against leaving the country without permission