Bail granted on parity where identically placed co-accused received Supreme Court bail.

The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) after being arrested in Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Cyber Cell Police Station, Range Durg, for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(1), 317(4), 319(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, participated in cyber fraud and online cheating and caused money to be received in the account of Shri Sant Nivrati Gyandeo Sopan Mukta Bai Sansthan, Pune.

The applicant relied on parity, submitting that similarly placed co-accused persons, P. Satyanagamurti and Balaji Shrinu, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 9946/2026; he also relied on his lack of criminal antecedents, detention since 6 February 2026, and filing of the charge-sheet.

The State opposed the application but conceded that the co-accused had been granted bail and that the applicant’s case was identical to theirs.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused persons on the ground of parity?

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and filing of the charge-sheet supported the grant of bail?

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 336(1), 317(4), 319(5) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The Court applied the principle of parity, under which an accused whose role and circumstances are materially identical to those of co-accused already released on bail may ordinarily receive similar relief, subject to the facts of the individual case.

It also considered relevant bail factors, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of detention, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of trial.

The Supreme Court’s order granting bail to the similarly situated co-accused in SLP (Cr.) No. 9946/2026 dated 31 July 2026 was treated as the basis for parity.

The Court found that the applicant and the co-accused who had been granted bail were similarly placed, and the State did not dispute the identity of their circumstances.

Applying the principle of parity, the Court held that the applicant could not be treated differently in the absence of any distinguishing circumstance.

The Court further relied on the applicant’s custody since 6 February 2026, lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude.

Balancing these considerations against the nature and gravity of the alleged cyber-fraud offences, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted at that stage.

Bail was subject to conditions, including that the applicant would not seek adjournments when witnesses were present; would remain present before the trial Court on each date, personally or through counsel; would comply with proceedings in the event of non-appearance or misuse of bail; and would appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

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