Anticipatory bail granted to co-accused on grounds of parity with main accused already enlarged.

The five applicants sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 73/2026 involving offences under Sections 191(3), 332(b), 296, 351(2), 115(2), 324(5), 309(4), and 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The prosecution alleged that on 23.01.2026, the applicants, alongside Sarpanch Dinesh Verma and a mob of 25–30 associates, forcibly entered the complainant's restaurant, assaulted staff, stole Rs. 24,000 and mobile phones, and caused property damage exceeding Rs. 6,50,000

The applicants argued the FIR was delayed by 10 days, their names were added due to political rivalry, and CCTV footage failed to establish their presence

the main accused (Dinesh Verma) had already been granted anticipatory bail, and the complainant had filed a "no objection" affidavit following an amicable settlement

Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the specific circumstances of the case?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC), which provides the framework for granting bail to persons apprehending arrest

It relied on the judicial principle of parity, which dictates that if a similarly situated or more deeply implicated co-accused has been granted bail, the same benefit should generally be extended to other accused persons unless distinguishing factors exist

The court also considered the nature of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court's reasoning centered on the fact that the main accused, Sarpanch Dinesh Verma, had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in MCRCA No. 339/2026 on 02.03.2026

Upon perusing the case diary, the Court observed that the case of the present applicants was "better than the case of co-accused" who had already received relief

The Court took cognizance of the amicable settlement between the parties, the lack of criminal antecedents of the applicants, and the "no objection" stance of the complainant

While the State opposed the bail citing the gravity of the vandalism and theft, the Court determined that the material available and the principle of parity outweighed the State's objections at this stage, without commenting on the final merits of the case

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety each

The grant was subject to conditions including: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) cooperation with the trial; (c) regular appearance before the trial court; (d) submission of verified Aadhaar details; and (e) refraining from committing similar future offences