Anticipatory bail may be granted on parity despite failure to surrender after expiry of transit bail.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 327/2025 involving the theft of a mobile phone and the fraudulent withdrawal of ₹99,000 via PhonePe.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant provided the "root account" to receive cheated funds, based on memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

Procedurally, the applicant had previously obtained interim/transit bail from the CJM, Alipore, Kolkata, but failed to surrender by the August 18, 2025 deadline, leading the trial court to issue an arrest warrant.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based solely on hearsay statements and sought parity with five co-accused already granted regular bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail despite failing to comply with a previous transit bail surrender order.

2. Whether the principle of parity and the nature of evidence (memorandum statements) justify the grant of bail under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The charges involved Sections 303(2) (theft), 317(2), (4), (5) (stolen property), 111 (organized crime), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The court also applied the doctrine of parity, ensuring that similarly situated accused persons receive similar treatment regarding liberty, and considered the evidentiary limitation of "memorandum statements" recorded during investigation.

The court balanced the applicant’s prior non-compliance with the transit bail order against the substantive merits of the investigation.

It noted that the primary evidence against the applicant consisted of memorandum statements from co-accused rather than direct evidence of the applicant withdrawing the defrauded funds.

The court emphasized that five other co-accused had already been enlarged on regular bail, placing the applicant on a "similar footing" for the purpose of bail consideration.

Despite the State’s objection regarding the applicant’s "disregard to the judicial order" and the need for custodial interrogation in a cyber-fraud case, the court found that the absence of criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations favored the protection of the applicant's liberty.

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond with one surety, subject to conditions including: non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, submission of Aadhaar credentials with photos, and a mandate not to engage in similar future offenses.