Bail granted on grounds of parity and prosecution witnesses failing to support the case.

The applicant, Nakeeb Khan, filed his first bail application following his arrest on June 22, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 316/2025 registered at Police Station Dongargarh.

The prosecution alleged that on June 19, 2025, the applicant and co-accused lured the complainant to a depot area where they used a knife to rob him of a gold ring and Rs. 8,000 cash, and forcibly transferred Rs. 1,00,000 via his mobile phone.

The applicant was charged under Sections 309(4) and 61(2)(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicant contended that the complainant and several witnesses had not supported the prosecution's case during their examination before the trial court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on the grounds of parity with co-accused and the duration of his incarceration.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the High Court power to grant regular bail.

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 309(4) (robbery) and 61(2)(A) (criminal conspiracy/common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court primarily relied on the principle of parity, ensuring that similarly situated accused persons receive consistent judicial treatment.

The court noted that the co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the same High Court on February 24, 2026, in MCRC No. 1899/2026, and the State could not dispute that the applicant's case was identical.

The court observed that the applicant had been in judicial custody since June 22, 2025, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, as only four out of fifteen witnesses had been examined.

Regarding criminal history, the court accepted the explanation that while one other case (Crime No. 134/2025) was registered against the applicant, he was already on bail in that matter.

By connecting the filing of the charge-sheet and the principle of parity to the specific facts of the applicant's prolonged detention, the court determined that further custody was unnecessary.

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) he must appear personally or through counsel on all fixed dates; and (iii) he must be present in person for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The court cautioned that any abuse of liberty would allow the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS or Section 84 of the BNSS.