Bail granted on parity where fatal gunshot was attributed to co-accused and complainant turned hostile.

The appellant was arrested on April 17, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 241/2025 for multiple offenses, including murder and violations of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Subhash, was assaulted by several persons; however, the specific allegation of firing the fatal gunshot was attributed to co-accused Jeetu Kushwaha, not the appellant.

The appellant’s first bail application was dismissed on August 19, 2025.

Subsequently, a co-accused, Bade alias Harishankar Kushwaha, was granted bail on June 10, 2026.

The appellant challenged the Datia Special Judge’s order dated June 18, 2026, which denied his bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to be released on bail based on the principle of parity with a co-accused who has already been granted bail.

2. Whether the change in circumstances, specifically the hostility of the complainant (the deceased's father) during trial, warrants the setting aside of the lower court's order refusing bail.

Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding the maintainability of appeals against bail orders.

Procedural requirements of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act regarding victim notification.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Judicial principle of "parity," which suggests that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding pretrial release.

The court observed that while the appellant was named in the FIR, the material evidence indicated that the fatal injury was caused by another co-accused, Jeetu Kushwaha, and not the appellant.

Significant weight was given to the fact that the complainant (the father of the deceased) had been examined by the trial court in April 2026 and had turned "hostile," failing to support the prosecution’s case against the appellant.

The State did not dispute that the appellant’s role was at par with co-accused Bade alias Harishankar Kushwaha, who had already been enlarged on bail.

The court reasoned that since the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet was filed, and the trial was expected to take a considerable amount of time, continued incarceration was unnecessary provided the appellant cooperated with the trial.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated June 18, 2026. The appellant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, and seeking permission before leaving the country.