Bail granted to accused under BNS sections 309(6) and 3(5) on grounds of parity and filed charge-sheet.

The applicants, Pranshu Pandey and Atul Singh Rathore, were arrested on 17.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 39/2026 registered at P.S. Chakarbhatha.

According to the prosecution, on 16.01.2026, the complainant was confronted by a group of individuals outside a hotel who demanded money for alcohol, physically assaulted him and his friend, and forcibly took ₹900.

The applicants were charged under Sections 309(6) (Robbery) and 3(5) (Joint Liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicants sought regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who were already granted bail and the completion of the investigation.

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, criminal antecedents, and the principle of parity.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

The substantive charges were under Sections 309(6) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court also referred to the principle of parity, noting the prior grant of bail to co-accused persons in MCRC Nos. 1481/2026 and 1520/2026 under similar circumstances.

Additionally, the court cited procedural compliance requirements under Sections 84 (Proclamation for person absconding), 209 (Punishment for non-appearance), 269 (Plea bargaining/Attendance), and 351 (Statement of accused) of the BNSS/BNS framework.

The court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the progress of the legal proceedings, noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The court distinguished between the two applicants: Atul Singh Rathore had two criminal antecedents, while Pranshu Pandey had none.

However, the court primarily focused on the fact that co-accused persons had already been granted liberty by the same court in February 2026.

Since the applicants had been in custody since January 2026 and the trial was expected to be prolonged, the court reasoned that continued incarceration was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure their presence during trial.

The bail is subject to conditions including: (i) no seeking of unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence at all trial dates; and (iii) strict compliance with court appearances for framing charges and recording statements, with the warning that default would be treated as an abuse of liberty.