Bail granted on parity where co-accused are released and applicant lacks criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Rajesh Agrawal, was arrested on November 9, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 159/2025 registered at Police Station Balrampur.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of October 31, 2025, unknown persons broke into a jewellery shop owned by Ajay Kumar Soni and stole gold and silver ornaments along with ₹75,000 in cash.

The applicant moved for regular bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated, no stolen articles were recovered from his possession, and he had no prior criminal record.

He specifically pleaded for parity, noting that co-accused persons, Roshan Soni and Badal Das, had already been granted bail by the same High Court.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the grounds of parity and the stage of the trial.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which confers power upon the High Court to grant regular bail.

The substantive offences were considered under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court also relied on the principle of parity, which dictates that similarly situated accused persons facing the same charges in the same transaction should generally be treated equally regarding the grant of bail.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since November 9, 2025, and that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The Court observed that the State could not dispute that the applicant’s case was identical to that of the co-accused persons, Roshan Soni and Badal Das, who were previously granted bail by the High Court in MCRC Nos. 221/2026 and 2252/2026.

The Court took into account that the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents and that the trial was likely to take significant time to conclude.

The Court found that the facts justified the extension of the benefit of parity to the applicant.

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present [para 7(i)]; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates [para 7(ii)]; and (iii) personal appearance for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court held that any violation of these conditions or misuse of liberty would entitle the trial court to proceed against the applicant in accordance with the law.