Bail granted on parity where key prosecution witnesses turned hostile and co-accused were already enlarged.

The appellant was arrested on June 25, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 340/2025 at Police Station Picchore, District Shivpuri. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused persons, committed "marpeet" (physical assault) against the deceased, Banti alias Sitaram Jatav, and threw his body into the Budhna river.

The appellant was charged under Sections 103(1), 238, 115(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.

Following the dismissal of his bail application by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Shivpuri, on July 9, 2026, the appellant filed this criminal appeal.

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

2. Whether the continued custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary given that the investigation is complete and several prosecution witnesses have turned hostile.

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

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

The principle of Parity, whereby similarly situated accused persons should be granted similar relief, and the general principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception when a trial is expected to take a long time and the investigation is complete.

The court evaluated the appellant's claim for bail by noting that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had already been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence.

It observed that 17 prosecution witnesses had already been examined and turned hostile, with only one witness providing a statement that deviated from his original police statement.

Crucially, the court found that the appellant’s case was on a similar footing to co-accused persons Ram Ratan, Keran, and Mulayam, who had already been granted bail by the High Court in July 2026. The State’s counsel also conceded this similarity.

The court reasoned that since the trial would take a long time and there was no evidence of the appellant being a flight risk, bail was appropriate.

The court ordered the release of the appellant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial, no tampering with witnesses, and no unauthorized travel outside India.