Bail granted on parity where prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence and statement of co-accused.

The Applicant, Akbar, was arrested and placed in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 355 of 2025 at Police Station SIDCUL, Haridwar

The prosecution alleged that the Applicant, in conspiracy with co-accused Soniya, murdered one Neetu using a chapaad (sharp-edged weapon) due to an illicit relationship

The Applicant moved for bail on the grounds that he was not named in the FIR, the case is based on circumstantial evidence with an incomplete chain, and he was implicated solely on the custodial statement of a co-accused.

Further, the Applicant sought parity as the co-accused, Soniya, had already been granted bail by the Sessions Judge on 17.12.2025

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail given the nature of the circumstantial evidence and the principle of parity with the co-accused.

The Court considered Sections 103(1) (punishment for murder) and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023

The court relied on the evidentiary principle that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for the innocence of the accused

It applied the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, which suggests that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail

The Court observed that the Applicant’s name did not appear in the original FIR and his involvement surfaced only during the investigation

The Court reasoned that the arguments regarding the "incompleteness of the chain of circumstances" and "implication based on a co-accused's statement" are matters of trial which require detailed appreciation at a later stage

Crucially, the Court found the Applicant's claim for parity valid, as the co-accused Soniya Kaur had already been released on bail

Balancing the nature of the allegations against the materials on record, the Court determined that a prima facie case for bail was established without expressing a final opinion on the merits

The Court held that the Applicant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity and the nature of the evidence

It ordered the Applicant to be released upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly