Anticipatory bail granted on parity with similarly situated co-accused despite criminal antecedents.

The applicant, a government teacher, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 51/2026 registered at Police Station Farasgaon, District Kondagaon, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the IPC

The complainant, a lecturer and previously acquainted with the applicant, alleged that the applicant facilitated the sanction of loans from various banks.

Approximately 60–65% of the sanctioned amounts were credited to the complainant’s salary account, from which an aggregate sum of ₹37,81,800 was transferred to various firms and connected persons

It was further alleged that, under an agreement or undertaking, ₹15,89,686 was deposited into the complainant’s account as dividend or profit, but the loan instalments subsequently exceeded his salary, causing financial hardship

The applicant denied involvement, contending that the complainant had independently obtained the loans and voluntarily transferred the money to different businesses, while no amount was transferred to the applicant’s account.

He further relied on the receipt of ₹15,89,686 through 22 banking transactions and asserted that the dispute was essentially financial and commercial

The State opposed the application on the ground that the applicant had three criminal antecedents

A similarly situated co-accused, Sunil Kishore, had previously been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in MCRCA No. 1351 of 2026.

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail on the ground of parity with the similarly situated co-accused who had already been granted such relief

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents warranted rejection of the anticipatory bail application.

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

The alleged offences were considered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, concerning cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal conspiracy and common intention

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

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court considered the prosecution allegations, the applicant’s defence, the case diary, the nature of the alleged transactions and the parties’ submissions

Although the State relied on the applicant’s three criminal antecedents, the Court found that the similarly situated co-accused, Sunil Kishore, had already received anticipatory bail.

On that basis, and having regard to the nature of the dispute and the material available on record, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity.

The Court expressly refrained from recording any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case

In the event of arrest, Ajay Kumar Nag was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and 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 witnesses; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; mandatory appearance before the trial Court on every date; submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents; and refraining from involvement in an offence of a similar nature