Bail granted on parity for limited role notwithstanding criminal antecedents and gravity of collective assault.

The applicant, Mohammad Asgar, was arrested on October 20, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 307/2025 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur

The prosecution alleged that on October 19, 2025, following a prior dispute during a "sandal sheet" procession, the applicant and several co-accused intercepted the complainant party at Eidgah Bhatha

The accused persons allegedly assaulted the complainants with fists, knives, bats, and iron rods with the intent to cause death, resulting in multiple injuries

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail after the filing of the charge-sheet, arguing that his name was not in the FIR, no weapon was recovered from him, and his alleged role was limited to assault by "hands and fists"

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the nature of his participation and the principle of parity?

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

The Court further relied on the judicial principle of parity, noting that co-accused with more severe allegations (use of a wooden bat) had already been enlarged on bail

The Court considered the procedural implications of Section 269 (non-attendance) and Section 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the BNS

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations against the specific overt acts attributed to the applicant. It noted that while co-accused Mohammad Saifi and others were alleged to have used knives and wooden bats, the applicant's role was confined to assault by "hands and fists"

Crucially, the Court observed that no weapon was seized from the applicant and his name did not appear in the FIR

Although the State opposed bail citing common intention and one prior criminal antecedent under the Arms Act, the Court held that the applicant’s case was distinguishable from the main accused who inflicted stab injuries

The Court found that since a similarly placed co-accused (Juned Chauhan) had been granted bail on February 27, 2026, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity

The Court considered the applicant's period of incarceration since October 2025 and the likely duration of the trial

The Court held that given the limited nature of the applicant's alleged participation and the grant of bail to co-accused, continued detention was not warranted

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments and a requirement for the applicant to be personally present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS