Anticipatory bail is warranted on parity where a similarly situated co-accused has already received it.

The applicant filed his first application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 313/2025 registered at Police Station Gaurela, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, for offences under Sections 296, 109(1), 189(1), 190, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on 2 November 2025, the complainant was forcibly taken out of a pickup vehicle and assaulted with sticks and hands by the applicant and others due to prior enmity, causing injuries to his head and hands. The complaint also contained allegations concerning abuse and an attempt to outrage the modesty of a woman.

The applicant claimed false implication, absence of specific allegations, clean antecedents, permanent residence, and the unlikelihood of absconding or influencing witnesses. He further relied on the principle of parity, stating that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in MCRCA No. 386 of 2026.

The State opposed the application.

The Court considered the submissions and perused the case diary.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 313/2025?

Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity because a similarly situated co-accused 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 to a person apprehending arrest.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature of the dispute, the material in the case diary, the submissions of the parties, and the treatment of similarly situated co-accused.

The principle of parity requires that similarly placed accused persons ordinarily receive similar bail treatment unless distinguishing circumstances exist.

Upon granting anticipatory bail, the Court may impose conditions to prevent intimidation or inducement of witnesses, obstruction of a fair trial, non-appearance before the trial court, and repetition of similar offences.

The Court assessed the allegations, the material available in the case diary, and the competing submissions of the parties.

Although the State opposed the application, the Court found that the applicant was similarly situated to co-accused Somil Kesarwani, who had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in MCRCA No. 386 of 2026.

On that basis, and having regard to the nature of the dispute and the overall circumstances, the Court held that the applicant deserved the benefit of parity.

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

The relief was made 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; and involvement in a similar offence.

The applicant and surety were also directed to submit Aadhaar documents and a colour postcard-size photograph bearing the printed Aadhaar number for verification by the trial court.