Bail granted to accused not named in FIR where no injury and similarly placed co-accused received protection.

The applicant, Simran Singh, sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 0187 of 2026, registered on 5 July 2026 at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sections 109(1), 351(3), 352, 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

The FIR was initially lodged against an unknown person, and the applicant was implicated during investigation on the basis of CCTV footage allegedly showing him present at the place of occurrence.

The applicant contended that no specific role was attributed to him, no injury had been caused, and he had no criminal antecedents.

He had been in custody since 9 July 2026.

The State did not dispute that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that other co-accused had received interim protection or anticipatory bail.

1. Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR, had no criminal antecedents, and was allegedly implicated on the basis of CCTV footage without any specific overt act being attributed to him, deserved to be released on regular bail.

2. Whether the applicant could claim parity with co-accused who had been granted interim protection or anticipatory bail, subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation.

The Court considered the provisions invoked in the FIR—Sections 109(1), 351(3), 352, 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

The governing principle applied was the discretionary power to grant bail after considering the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s alleged role, criminal antecedents, custody status, the presence or absence of injury, and the need to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

The Court also applied the principle of parity, noting the interim protection or anticipatory bail granted to similarly placed co-accused.

The Court found that the applicant was not named in the original FIR and had been implicated subsequently during investigation.

It took into account that the case involved no injury, that no specific role had been assigned to the applicant, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

The Court further relied on the fact that two co-accused had obtained interim protection from the High Court and another co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail by the trial court, thereby supporting the applicant’s claim for parity.

Since the State did not oppose bail on the ground of antecedents and accepted that appropriate conditions could secure the applicant’s cooperation, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The applicant was specifically directed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation after release.