Bail granted on parity where co-accused is released and investigation is complete.

The applicant was arrested on 13.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 322/2025 involving alleged cyber fraud.

The prosecution alleged that based on Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre reports, the applicant and co-accused misappropriated victims' accounts and committed fraud amounting to ₹52,790/-.

The applicant sought regular bail, contending false implication and citing that he has two criminal antecedents (receiving bail in one).

He further argued for parity as a co-accused, Ranjeet Singh, was granted bail on 23.02.2026.

The State opposed the application, noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on the grounds of parity and the conclusion of the investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant bail.

It relied on the principle of Parity, whereby an accused may be granted bail if a similarly situated co-accused has already been released.

Additionally, the court considered the procedural transition to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 317(4) (stolen property), 318(2) (cheating), and 61(2)(a) (criminal conspiracy), alongside Section 269 (non-attendance) and Section 209 (failure to appear) of the BNS/BNSS regarding bail condition compliance.

The Court examined the applicant's custody period, noting he had been in jail since 11.11.2025.

The Bench observed that since the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court, the applicant's presence for interrogation was no longer required.

Crucially, the Court found that a co-accused (Ranjeet Singh) had been granted bail in a related MCRC (No. 27 of 2026), making a strong case for parity.

The Court weighed the relatively small amount involved (₹52,790/-) and the likely duration of the trial against the necessity of continued incarceration.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: (i) no seeking of unnecessary adjournments, (ii) mandatory presence on trial dates, and (iii) compliance with appearance requirements for framing charges and recording statements.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.