Bail granted on parity where role of co-accused is identical and investigation is complete.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 294/2025 involving alleged fraud under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojana (2024–2025)

The prosecution alleged that the accused, in connivance with government officials and insurance agents, falsely claimed insurance for a non-existent chickpea crop on land where banana crops were actually growing, resulting in a wrongful disbursement of over ₹25 lakhs

The applicants moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing they were falsely implicated without specific overt acts and citing the principle of parity as a co-accused had already been granted bail

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the stage of the investigation

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

It also applied the judicial principle of parity, whereby similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail

Additionally, the court considered Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-attendance and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamation for absconding persons

The court observed that a similarly situated co-accused, Parmeshwar Sahu, had been granted bail by the same court on April 27, 2026, in MCRC No. 3806/2026

The State counsel could not dispute that the present applicants' case was identical to that of the released co-accused

The court further noted that the applicants had no prior criminal antecedents, had been in custody since February 2, 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed

Given that the trial was likely to take significant time, the court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary

The applicants were ordered to be released on furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at trial, no seeking of unnecessary adjournments, and compliance with Section 351 of the BNSS

The court held that if the applicants abuse the liberty of bail, the trial court is empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS