Anticipatory bail granted on parity where the applicant’s role substantially matched that of a bailed co-accused.

The applicant, a Society Manager and employee of the Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 262/2026 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Sarguja, for offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that on 25 December 2025, during a telephone call made by co-accused Bharat Yadav to deceased Dinesh Gupta, the applicant also threatened the deceased. On 26 December 2025, the deceased was found hanging and had died; a criminal case was thereafter registered against five persons, including the applicant.

The applicant denied the allegations, contended that he had been falsely implicated, and submitted that he had not been named in the merg. He further relied on the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused Bharat Yadav, whose case was asserted to be on similar footing.

The State opposed the application but conceded that the applicant’s case was substantially similar to that of Bharat Yadav, who had been granted anticipatory bail; it further submitted that the applicant had been named by a co-accused in a statement recorded under Section 181 of the BNSS.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 262/2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to parity with co-accused Bharat Yadav, who had already been granted anticipatory bail in the same crime.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The Court also considered the allegations under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS and assessed the nature of the accusation, the surrounding circumstances, the applicant’s status, and the principle of parity with a similarly placed co-accused.

The Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s employment with the Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, and the fact that co-accused Bharat Yadav had been granted anticipatory bail in the same matter.

Although the State relied on the applicant’s alleged implication in a co-accused’s statement under Section 181 of the BNSS, it did not dispute that the applicant’s case was substantially similar to Bharat Yadav’s case.

Giving weight to the principle of parity and the overall circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to extend the discretionary protection of anticipatory bail, expressly without commenting on the merits of the case.

The Court directed that, in the event of the applicant’s arrest in Crime No. 262/2026, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The applicant was required to remain available for interrogation, refrain from influencing or intimidating witnesses, avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.