Anticipatory bail granted where applicant was absent from occurrence and co-accused received bail on parity.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 83/2026 registered at Police Station Hardi Bazar, Korba, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 333 and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and filed his first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on 29 May 2026, the complainant, aged approximately 64 years, and her daughter were abused, threatened and assaulted with bricks and stones by the applicant’s father, mother and brothers after they allegedly entered the complainant’s premises by climbing over the boundary wall.

The FIR was registered, investigation was conducted, and the police filed the final report.

The applicant contended that although he was named in the FIR, he was on duty at Dev Mining Ltd. Coal Washery at the relevant time and was not included as an accused in the final report.

He also relied on the grant of regular bail to similarly situated co-accused persons and claimed parity.

Whether the applicant, who apprehended arrest in connection with the stated offences under the BNS, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023?

Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity with the co-accused who had already been granted regular bail, particularly when the material indicated that he was not present at the place of occurrence?

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 Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the applicant’s asserted absence from the place of occurrence, and the principle of parity with similarly situated co-accused who had already been granted bail.

Upon granting anticipatory bail, the Court imposed conditions designed to prevent interference with witnesses, prejudice to a fair trial, non-appearance before the trial court, identity-related verification, and involvement in similar offences.

The Court considered the case diary, the submissions of both parties and the nature of the dispute.

It found significant that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted regular bail by the Court in MCRC No. 6364/2026.

These circumstances supported the applicant’s claim of parity and reduced the justification for custodial arrest.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court held that the applicant deserved the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The Court directed that, in the event of the applicant’s arrest, Aditya Patle be released on bail on execution of a personal bond and one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

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