Bail granted on parity where applicant was unnamed in the FIR and co-accused had been released.

The complainant reported that Gopal Sahu had gone to the Durga Mela at Suhela on 27 September 2025 and failed to return home. His dead body was found the following morning near the house of Shankar Verma, allegedly bearing injuries caused by assault.

An FIR was initially registered against unknown persons for an offence under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). Following investigation, the applicant and other accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 238 of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that he was not named in the FIR, had been implicated primarily on the basis of co-accused memorandum statements, was not alleged to have used a weapon, and had no criminal antecedents.

A co-accused, Roshan Yadav @ Thaneshwar Yadav, had already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench.

The State opposed the application but fairly conceded that the applicant’s case was similar to that of the released co-accused.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the alleged offences under the BNS and Arms Act.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused who had already been released on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the applicant’s specific role, the fact that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons, the absence of a weapon recovery from the applicant, the absence of criminal antecedents, the likely duration of the trial, and the principle of parity with a similarly placed co-accused already granted bail.

Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court found that the applicant was not named in the original FIR, which had been registered against unknown persons, and that the prosecution case against him principally involved his alleged presence with the co-accused and assault by hands and fists.

No weapon had been recovered from him; the alleged knife was recovered from another accused. The Court also noted that the applicant had no other criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 1 October 2025, and that a similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail.

Since the State accepted the similarity between the applicant’s case and that of the released co-accused, and the trial was likely to take time, the Court held that the applicant deserved bail on the ground of parity.

The release was subject to conditions that he make himself available for police interrogation when required, refrain from inducing, threatening or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and not act in a manner prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.