Bail granted on parity where accused not named in FIR and implicated solely via co-accused memorandums.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 378/2025.

The prosecution alleged that several co-accused induced the complainant and others to invest approximately Rs. 40,82,000/- in the share market under the false promise of doubling the amount within two years.

While the FIR originally named several individuals for cheating under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC (later registered as BNS offenses), the applicant was not named in the FIR or the initial statements of co-accused Atma Ram and Ramnarayan Sahu.

The applicant was arrested on 18.03.2026 and implicated primarily through subsequent memorandum statements during the investigation.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering his absence from the FIR and the grant of bail to other co-accused on the grounds of parity?

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

In exercising its discretion, the Court considered the principle of parity in bail matters, noting that several co-accused (Diwakar, Chandraprakash, Shweta, Anita, etc.) had previously been granted bail.

It also considered the evidentiary value of memorandum statements under the law, noting they require independent corroboration for conviction, and the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that the applicant was not named in the FIR and that his implication appeared to rest solely on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, negating the need for custodial interrogation.

Critically, the Court highlighted that multiple co-accused with similar or more direct roles had already been granted regular or anticipatory bail by the High Court.

Although the applicant has four other cases of a similar nature, the Court found that the prosecution failed to show direct evidence of monetary transactions, call records, or recoveries connecting the applicant to the present crime.

There was no evidence suggested that the applicant would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released.

The Court allowed the application and directed that the applicant be released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties.

The applicant was ordered to adhere to strict conditions, including regular attendance before the trial court and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.