Bail granted on ground of parity in multi-accused financial fraud case following charge-sheet filing.

The applicant, Rupesh Sahu, was arrested on September 1, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 170/2025 for allegedly cheating the complainant and others of approximately ₹2.5 crore under the guise of tripling their money.

The applicant’s name surfaced in the memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

Although a previous bail application for a co-accused was rejected on merits on December 9, 2025, several other co-accused persons were subsequently granted bail between December 2025 and May 2026.

The applicant, facing three criminal antecedents, sought regular bail on the grounds of parity and the conclusion of the investigation.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on the principle of parity with co-accused persons and the duration of his incarceration.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

It emphasized the judicial principle of parity, where an accused in a similar legal and factual position as those already released should be granted similar relief.

The Court considered the procedural safeguards under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-attendance and Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the presence of the accused during trial.

The substantive charges were under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 3(5) (joint liability), and 111 (organized crime) of the BNS.

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations and the applicant's three criminal antecedents against the fact that a charge-sheet had already been filed and the investigation was complete.

Critically, the Court noted that while the first bail application of a co-accused had been rejected, six other co-accused persons had recently been granted bail by the same Court in related MCRCs.

The State counsel could not dispute that the applicant’s role was identical to those co-accused who were released.

Given that the applicant had been in custody since September 2025 and the trial was expected to be protracted, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary.

The applicant was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including: strict attendance at trial dates, no seeking of adjournments, and personal presence during charge framing and Section 351 BNSS statements.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.