Bail Denied Where Specific Overt Role and Weapon Recovery Distinguish Accused From Co-Accused Seeking Parity

The Applicant, Rohit Mandola, filed a bail application regarding FIR No. 201 of 2025 registered at Police Station Haldwani under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution alleged that the Applicant, along with 10–12 associates, intercepted the informant and assaulted them with firearms and blunt weapons.

Specifically, the Applicant was accused of firing gunshots that injured the complainant’s brother and others.

The Applicant contended he was falsely implicated, the injuries were on non-vital parts, and he sought parity with co-accused who had been released on bail.

The State and Complainant opposed the plea, citing the recovery of a .32 bore pistol from the Applicant and his role as the main assailant.

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused and the nature of the injuries inflicted.

2. Whether the alleged procedural lapses in arrest and lacks of electronic certification (Section 65-B) are sufficient to outweigh the gravity of the accusations at the bail stage.

The court's decision was governed by the principles of judicial discretion in granting bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly CrPC). It considered Sections 109 (Attempt to murder), 191(3) (Rioting armed with deadly weapon), and other provisions of the BNS, 2023, alongside Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The court applied the settled principle that bail must be weighed against the gravity of the offence, the specific role of the accused, the severity of potential punishment, and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

It also addressed the doctrine of parity, which suggests that similarly situated accused should be treated equally, unless a distinct overt act differentiates them.

The Court rejected the Applicant’s plea for parity, observing that the role assigned to him—specifically the use of a firearm and causing gunshot injuries—was a "specific overt act" that distinguished him from co-accused who had been enlarged on bail.

While the Applicant argued that the injuries were on non-vital parts and challenged the admissibility of video evidence due to lack of certification under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, the Court prioritized the "nature and gravity of accusations" and the recovery of the illegal weapon from the Applicant's possession.

The Court reasoned that the severity of the incident and the potential for the Applicant to influence prosecution witnesses justified continued judicial custody at this stage.

It held that the Applicant, being the primary assailant with a specific role in the firing incident, cannot claim parity with other co-accused.

The Court directed that the application be dismissed, while clarifying that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and shall not affect the trial on its merits.