Bail granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused, despite antecedents, were already released.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 1123/2025 registered at Police Station Smriti Nagar, Chowki Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 240(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act.

The prosecution alleged that Nisha Business Consultancy and Unique Investment Solution induced investors by promising returns of 20% per month on share-market investments.

The complainant invested ₹23,30,000 between 27 September 2024 and 8 February 2025, after which the company allegedly shut its operations and its representatives absconded.

The FIR alleged aggregate financial involvement of ₹66,47,000.

The applicant had been in custody since 29 September 2025; the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

He relied on bail granted to similarly placed co-accused persons, despite having two pending criminal antecedents from 2025.

The State opposed bail on the merits but did not dispute that the named co-accused had already been granted bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in view of the allegations of inducing investors and causing substantial financial loss?

Whether the principle of parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail, together with the applicant’s period of custody and filing of the charge-sheet, justified release on bail despite his criminal antecedents?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the established bail factors, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the period of detention, the status of investigation, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of parity with similarly situated co-accused.

The Court also considered the effect of criminal antecedents, but treated them in the context of the fact that a co-accused with three criminal antecedents had already been granted bail.

The offences alleged were under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 240(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act.

The Court acknowledged the allegations that the applicant had participated in inducing the complainant and other investors through a promise of 20% monthly returns and had contributed to the alleged financial loss.

However, the applicant had remained in custody since 29 September 2025, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

More importantly, the Court found the applicant’s case materially identical to that of the co-accused who had already secured bail.

The applicant’s two pending criminal antecedents did not justify differential treatment because one of the released co-accused had three criminal antecedents.

Balancing the seriousness of the allegations against custody, completion of investigation, parity, and the anticipated duration of the trial, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain represented or present on each date of hearing, to 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, and to face consequences for misuse of bail or non-appearance pursuant to court process.