Bail granted on parity where co-accused received anticipatory bail and trial likely to be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 116/2026 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1) and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, following an earlier dispute, the applicant and co-accused persons visited the complainant’s house, abused and assaulted him with an iron rod, knife and bottle, causing an injury to his head, and threatened him with death.

The applicant claimed false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, custody since 14 May 2026, and likely delay in completion of trial.

He also relied on the fact that co-accused persons had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute the grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings, and his period of custody.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), which empowers the High Court to grant bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

It considered the settled bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of maintaining parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1) and 191(2) of the BNS.

Bail was made subject to conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages of trial, and consequences of misuse of liberty.

The Court found that the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and he had remained in custody since 14 May 2026.

It further noted that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the allegations involved assault, threats and participation with other accused persons, the Court considered the grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused by the same Court to be a relevant parity factor.

The State could not dispute that circumstance.

On the cumulative consideration of parity, the applicant’s clean antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody and probable delay in trial, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The applicant, Harsh Sonwani, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on every date fixed by the trial court, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS, and to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.