Anticipatory bail granted on parity with similarly situated co-accused despite prosecution’s objection.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 430/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, for offences under Sections 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the principal accused, in collusion with other persons, induced members of the public to invest money through bank accounts in the share market by promising to double their money, thereby allegedly cheating several persons of approximately ₹81,00,000.

The applicant was subsequently implicated during investigation, although his name was not mentioned in the original FIR.

The applicant claimed false implication on the basis of co-accused memorandum statements, absence of participation in the alleged offences, completion of the investigation, filing of charge-sheets against 16 co-accused persons, and parity with co-accused who had already been granted anticipatory bail.

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

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the alleged offences under the BNS?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity because similarly situated co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court?

3. Whether the applicant’s alleged criminal antecedents justified rejection of 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 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court also applied the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence: an accused similarly situated to co-accused who have already received bail may ordinarily claim comparable relief, subject to the facts and role attributed to that accused.

The Court considered the general anticipatory-bail factors, including the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the need for custodial interrogation, the applicant’s cooperation, and the possibility of interference with the investigation or trial.

The Court considered the allegations of a large-scale financial fraud and the State’s objection based on the applicant’s alleged five criminal antecedents.

However, it found that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA Nos. 577/2026 and 578/2026 by order dated 06.05.2026 and in MCRCA No. 757/2026 by order dated 14.05.2026.

The Court further took into account that the principal and supplementary charge-sheets had already been filed against 16 co-accused, indicating substantial completion of the investigation, and that the applicant undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

Balancing these circumstances against the prosecution’s objection, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity and that anticipatory bail could be granted without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to witnesses; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; non-appearance before the trial Court; submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents; and involvement in any similar offence in the future.