Bail granted on parity with co-accused previously enlarged on bail.

The prosecution case was that accused No. 1, Suchitra, and the petitioner, accused No. 3, were in a relationship.

The prosecution alleged that they sought to prevent Suchitra’s daughter from visiting her father, and that the petitioner contacted accused No. 8 to arrange persons to stop her.

Other accused allegedly carried out the attack in which Vasanth Nayak, the complainant’s husband, was killed.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 23/2026.

The investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail, relying on eyewitness accounts and the seriousness of the offence, and asserting risks of flight and witness tampering.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the allegations, the material collected, and the completion of the investigation.

2. Whether the petitioner could be granted bail on the ground of parity with accused Nos. 4, 6, and 7, who had previously been granted bail.

The Court considered the petitioner’s application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

In assessing the application, it considered the prosecution’s eyewitness evidence, the alleged roles of the accused, the medical evidence, and parity with co-accused who had been granted bail.

The order does not cite any precedent or set out a broader test governing the grant of bail.

The Court noted that the prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts and that the post-mortem report attributed the deceased’s death to a stab injury; it also recorded that the witnesses attributed the stabbing to accused No. 5.

The Court then discussed the alleged presence of accused Nos. 4, 6, and 7 at the scene and the absence of individual overt acts by them, observing that those accused had been granted bail in earlier petitions.

On that basis, it held that the petitioner was entitled to bail on parity.

The order does not separately analyse the prosecution allegation that the petitioner contacted accused No. 8 or otherwise explain how the petitioner’s alleged role in the events was comparable to that of accused Nos. 4, 6, and 7.

Bail was subject to conditions that the petitioner not tamper with or threaten prosecution witnesses, regularly attend court, and not involve himself in similar offences.

The Court stated that breach of the conditions could be raised in an application for cancellation of bail, and that its observations were not to influence the trial court.