Anticipatory bail may be granted on parity where co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.

The complainant alleged that the accused induced him to pay money by promising a subsidy for purchasing a tractor-trailer and agricultural equipment. The complaint stated that ₹5,91,000 was received in cash and through RTGS, of which ₹4,00,000 was repaid, while the tractor-trailer was not provided and the balance was not returned

The petitioner, Accused No. 2, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 111/2026, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He contended that the dispute arose from a monetary transaction and that the complaint was false; the State opposed bail, citing the pending investigation and risk of witness tampering

Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the alleged offences under the BNS

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with Accused Nos. 1 and 3, who had been granted bail

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the Court to grant anticipatory bail.

In deciding bail, the Court considers the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the risk of absconding or reoffending, the possibility of evidence tampering, and the applicant’s character and antecedents.

The Court need not conduct a mini-trial or scrutinize the prosecution case in detail at the bail stage

The Court also considered that the alleged offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and that Accused Nos. 1 and 3 had been granted bail

The Court treated the matter as involving a monetary transaction, noting that the petitioner and others had allegedly borrowed ₹5,00,000 on a promise to arrange a subsidy and that ₹4,00,000 had been repaid, leaving ₹1,00,000 outstanding

Having regard to the nature of the alleged offences, the grant of bail to the other accused, and the applicable bail considerations, the Court found no reasonable and sufficient grounds at that stage to believe that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences.

It therefore granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions intended to secure the petitioner’s attendance and cooperation and to prevent interference with witnesses or evidence

The Court also imposed conditions concerning attendance before the Trial Court, cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, refraining from similar offences, and weekly attendance before the police for six months or until filing of the final report, whichever occurred earlier.