Bail granted on parity where accused was not named in FIR and role was limited to assault by hands.

The applicant filed a second bail application seeking release in connection with Crime No. 249/2025 involving the murder of Gopal Sahu

On September 27, 2025, the deceased was found with sharp weapon injuries near a village fair

The applicant was arrested on October 1, 2025, based on memorandum statements provided by co-accused persons and witness claims of seeing the accused group near the fields

The applicant contended that his name was not in the FIR, no weapon was recovered from him (the knife was recovered from co-accused Samir Verma), and the only allegation against him was assault by hands and fists

This second application followed a previous withdrawal of a former bail plea

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the nature of the evidence

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (successor to Section 439 of the CrPC), regarding the grant of regular bail

It further applied the doctrine of parity, which suggests that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally in the matter of bail, referencing the previous enlargement of co-accused Roshan Yadav @ Thaneshwar Yadav on bail

Additionally, the court adhered to the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception when the trial is likely to be prolonged and the accused is not named in the FIR or directly linked to the recovery of the weapon

The Court observed that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and did not specifically name the applicant

It noted that while a knife was recovered during investigation, it was seized from co-accused Samir Verma rather than the applicant, whose alleged role was limited to assault by "hands and fists"

The Court found that the applicant’s circumstances were nearly identical to those of co-accused Roshan Yadav, who had been granted bail by a coordinate bench on March 3, 2026

Given that the applicant had been in custody since October 1, 2025, and that the prosecution fairly conceded the similarity between the co-accused, the Court determined that further detention was unnecessary as the trial would take considerable time to conclude

The bail was granted on the grounds of parity and the lack of direct weapon recovery from the applicant

The holding was subject to conditions that the applicant must not influence witnesses, must not prejudice the trial, and must appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates