Bail granted on parity where a similarly situated co-accused had already been enlarged on bail.

The complainant reported that two mobile numbers had transmitted an obscene video involving him and certain women through WhatsApp and demanded ₹50,000, threatening to circulate the video if the demand was not met.

Crime No. 289/2026 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, for offences under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

During investigation, the applicant and a juvenile were apprehended after the mobile numbers were traced.

The prosecution alleged that they admitted planning the offence and that the mobile phone used in the offence was seized pursuant to their memorandum statement.

The applicant, detained since 21 May 2026, filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

He asserted false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, and parity with co-accused Sayyed Saif Ali, who had already been granted bail.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the offences under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with similarly situated co-accused Sayyed Saif Ali, who had already been granted bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail in appropriate cases.

It considered the settled bail factors, including the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the period of custody, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the possibility of parity with a similarly situated co-accused.

The Court also considered the prosecution provisions invoked—Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act—but expressly refrained from making any observation on the merits.

The principle of parity requires similarly situated accused persons to receive comparable treatment unless distinguishing circumstances exist.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since 21 May 2026, had no previous criminal antecedents, and that the State did not dispute the grant of bail to the similarly situated co-accused.

Finding the applicant’s case to be similar to that of Sayyed Saif Ali, the Court treated parity as a material circumstance supporting bail.

Having considered the nature and gravity of the allegations and the period of detention, the Court held that continued custody was not warranted at that stage, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The applicant, Tameshwar Sonwani, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to appear before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings relating to any misuse of bail or non-appearance, and to remain personally present at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.