Bail granted to similarly placed accused on parity, subject to antecedent and grievous-injury exceptions.

The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No. 232 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 228 of 2026, pending before the JMFC, Kabisuryanagar.

They were accused under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 190 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in relation to an alleged riot in which the petitioners and other accused, allegedly armed with deadly weapons, assaulted Akhaya Kumar Patra, Ajaya Kumar Patra and Tukula Patra and attempted on their lives.

The petitioners had been in custody since 22 April 2026, and the police had submitted the charge-sheet during the period of custody.

The petitioners relied on the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused persons, including Shantilata Behera, in ABLAPL No. 5095 of 2026.

Whether the petitioners, being allegedly similarly situated to co-accused who had already been granted bail, were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, on the principle of parity.

Whether the benefit of bail was subject to the conditions relating to criminal antecedents and the nature of injuries suffered by the informant’s side or the petitioners’ side during the incident.

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

It considered the principle of parity, under which an accused similarly situated to co-accused already granted bail may ordinarily receive similar relief, subject to distinguishing circumstances.

The alleged offences were under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 190 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court also adopted the conditions imposed in the earlier bail order in ABLAPL No. 5095 of 2026, namely that bail would not operate where the concerned accused had criminal antecedents or where a person from the informant’s side had suffered grievous injuries, while preserving the benefit of bail where the petitioners or persons from their side had equally suffered grievous injuries.

The Court found that the petitioners could claim parity with the co-accused who had already been granted bail and that the earlier bail order had not been challenged by either the informant or the State.

The petitioners had remained in custody for a substantial period, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the allegations concerned a group assault involving the petitioners and eighteen other accused.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that these circumstances, together with the existing order granting bail to similarly placed co-accused, justified extending the same terms and conditions to the petitioners.

However, the benefit was not to be extended if the relevant petitioner had criminal antecedents or if anyone from the informant’s side had suffered grievous injuries during the incident.

The petitioners were nevertheless to be released on bail if they or anyone from their side had suffered equally grievous injuries.

Both BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of, and a soft copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned court and jail authorities.