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

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 218/2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the accused persons executed a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and his wife in respect of land through forged and fabricated documents.

The applicant contended that the land stood in his deceased father’s name in the revenue records, that co-accused Ramkishan Jais acted under a power of attorney, received payments from the complainant, and executed the sale transaction without the applicant’s involvement or receipt of any money.

He further relied on the delay between the alleged transaction and registration of the FIR, absence of criminal antecedents, lack of direct evidence, and the anticipatory bail already granted to co-accused Ramkishan Jais by the High Court.

The State opposed the application, but the Court, after examining the case diary and hearing the parties, considered the applicant’s claim of parity.

1. Whether the applicant, who apprehended arrest for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity because similarly situated co-accused Ramkishan Jais had already been granted anticipatory bail.

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 alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court also applied the principle of parity in bail matters, under which an accused similarly situated to a co-accused who has already been granted bail may ordinarily receive similar relief, subject to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Bail was made subject to conditions intended to prevent interference with witnesses, obstruction of a fair trial, non-appearance before the trial court, and repetition of similar offences.

The Court considered the nature of the dispute, the material in the case diary, and the submissions of both sides.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, it found that the applicant was similarly situated to co-accused Ramkishan Jais, who had already been granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 627 of 2025 by order dated 2 May 2025.

On that basis, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity and that anticipatory bail was appropriate.

The Court therefore balanced the grant of protection from arrest with safeguards securing the integrity and progress of the trial.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Dinesh Kumar Hariyani be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; failure to appear before the trial court on every scheduled date; submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents by the applicant and surety; and involvement in similar offences in the future.