Bail granted on parity where similarly situated co-accused received bail and trial conclusion may be delayed.

The applicant was arrested on 28.10.2024 in connection with Crime No. 333/2024 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Hariom Singh, was taken from his residence on the night of 24.10.2024 to the accused persons’ workplace, where he was assaulted by the applicant and other co-accused persons with hands, fists and a wooden club. He was left near his residence in an injured condition on 25.10.2024, was taken to hospital, and died at approximately 2:15 p.m. the same day.

The applicant’s first bail application was withdrawn, while his second application was dismissed on merits.

In the present third bail application, the applicant relied on completion of investigation, prolonged custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and bail granted to co-accused Santosh Soni and Saksham Pandey by the Supreme Court.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant was involved in the fatal assault.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the serious allegations under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS?

2. Whether completion of investigation, custody since 28.10.2024, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, and the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused justified release on the principle of parity?

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

The Court considered the nature of the allegations, the status of investigation, the period of custody, the likely duration of trial, and parity with co-accused who had received bail.

The prosecution case was based on offences under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, relating to the alleged culpable homicide/murderous act, causing disappearance or screening of evidence, and acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, respectively.

The Court also took note of the Supreme Court’s orders granting bail to co-accused Santosh Soni and Saksham Pandey in the cited SLPs, where similar allegations were made.

The Court acknowledged the serious allegation that the applicant, along with the co-accused, assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death.

However, the investigation had been completed, the applicant had remained in custody since 28.10.2024, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Since co-accused Santosh Soni and Saksham Pandey, against whom similar allegations were made, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court, the Court found a relevant basis for applying parity. Balancing these considerations against the seriousness of the accusation, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted at that stage and that the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings in the event of misuse of bail or non-appearance pursuant to proclamation, and to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.