Anticipatory bail granted on parity where similarly situated co-accused had already been enlarged on bail.

The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 14(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 15 July 2026 by which the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Guna, rejected his application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The apprehended arrest related to Crime No. 360/2020 registered at Police Station Kumbharaj, District Guna, for offences under Sections 323, 324, 353, 332, 186, 147, 148, 149, 506 and 294 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant contended that he had previously cooperated with the investigation pursuant to a notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC, but was not informed about filing of the charge-sheet.

He denied having used caste-based abuses and asserted that no offence was made out against him.

He also claimed parity with co-accused persons who had been granted bail by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5822/2026 on 8 July 2026.

The State opposed the appeal but fairly conceded that the appellant’s case was similar to that of the co-accused already enlarged on bail.

The victim was stated to have been informed of the appeal in compliance with Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.

Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with the offences alleged under the IPC and the SC/ST Act?

Whether the appellant was entitled to relief on the ground of parity with similarly situated co-accused persons who had already been granted bail?

What conditions should govern the grant and continuation of anticipatory bail?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST Act against the order refusing bail and considered the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act requires due notice and participation-related safeguards for victims, which the Court noted had been complied with.

The Court applied the principle of parity in bail matters, under which a similarly situated accused may ordinarily receive comparable relief where co-accused on an equivalent factual footing have already been granted bail.

It also applied the settled discretionary principles governing anticipatory bail, including cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, regular appearance before the trial court, and the possibility of cancellation upon breach of bail conditions.

The Court noted that the appellant had asserted prior cooperation with the investigation, denied the caste-related allegations, and claimed that his case was materially identical to that of the co-accused who had already obtained bail.

Although the State opposed the appeal, it expressly conceded the similarity between the appellant’s case and that of the released co-accused.

Considering this concession, the principle of parity, the fact that the trial was likely to take time, and the absence of any apparent likelihood of the appellant fleeing from justice, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The relief was made conditional upon the appellant appearing within fifteen days, furnishing the prescribed bond and surety, cooperating with the investigation, avoiding interference with witnesses or evidence, and complying with future procedural requirements.

The Court directed that if the appellant appeared before the Investigating Officer or trial court within fifteen days and furnished a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount, he would be released on anticipatory bail.

Failure to appear within the stipulated period would automatically cancel the order.

The appellant was required to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from similar offences and from threatening or influencing witnesses, comply with bond and appearance requirements after submission of the final report, and ensure compliance with the provisions concerning examination of witnesses.

The protection was to remain effective until conclusion of the trial, subject to cancellation on breach of the bail conditions.