Anticipatory bail granted on parity where the principal assault allegation concerned a co-accused already granted bail.

The applicant, Priya Namdev, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 106/2026 registered at Police Station Podi for offences under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 324, 333 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and the victim, Kalim Mohammad, were in a relationship and that the applicant possessed certain documents belonging to him. On 1 July 2026, after Kalim allegedly abused and assaulted the applicant when she refused to return the documents, the applicant’s brother allegedly intervened and assaulted Kalim with a spade, injuring both his hands.

The applicant claimed false implication and contended that the FIR was a counterblast to the complaint lodged by her. She relied on the grant of regular bail to her brother, anticipatory bail to co-accused Nirmala Namdev, and anticipatory bail to Kalim Mohammad, seeking relief on the ground of parity.

The State opposed the application.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail on the ground of parity with her brother and co-accused persons who had already been granted bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.

In assessing such relief, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, the specific role attributed to the applicant, and the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused. The principle of parity permits bail where a co-accused with a comparable or more serious alleged role has already been granted bail, subject to the facts of the individual case.

The offences alleged against the applicant were those punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 324, 333 and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court noted that the principal allegation of assaulting Kalim with a spade was directed against the applicant’s brother, who had already been granted regular bail.

It further considered that co-accused Nirmala Namdev and the victim, Kalim Mohammad, had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. In light of these orders, the applicant’s alleged role, the available case-diary material, and the fact that she was a woman, the Court found that she was entitled to the benefit of parity. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Priya Namdev be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to witnesses; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; mandatory appearance before the trial court on every date; submission and verification of Aadhaar-card copies and photographs of the applicant and surety; and non-involvement in any similar offence in future.