Bail is grantable on parity where similarly situated co-accused have been enlarged on regular bail.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the rejection of his first application on October 8, 2025.

The applicant was arrested on June 9, 2025, in connection with an alleged investment fraud where the complainant was induced to transfer funds into various bank accounts—including one linked to the applicant's firm, "Good Dream Enterprises"—under the guise of share market investments with "BN Rathi Securities Limited".

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 318(4) (cheating) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, no incriminating materials were recovered from him, and he had no prior criminal record.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail.

2. Whether the duration of the applicant's incarceration and the lack of criminal antecedents justify his release pending trial.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It relied on the "principle of parity," which dictates that similarly placed accused persons should be treated alike unless a material distinction justifies differential treatment.

The court also referenced Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, regarding the underlying charges.

Procedural sections of the BNSS and BNS (Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351) regarding bail conditions and trial attendance.

The court observed that although the applicant’s initial bail application was rejected on merits, subsequent developments showed that co-accused Nagendra Kumar was granted bail by the Supreme Court (SLP Crl. No. 3611/2026) and co-accused Priyank Jitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt was granted bail by the High Court.

The court found no material distinction in the roles or allegations against the applicant compared to the co-accused that would warrant denying him the benefit of parity.

The court took into account that the applicant had been in custody since June 9, 2025, possessed no previous criminal record, and that the trial was likely to be protracted.

Consequently, the court determined that continued detention was unnecessary provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure trial attendance.

The court held that the principle of parity and the applicant’s clean record outweighed the previous rejection of bail.

The release was made subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at all trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements), and faces proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS if he absconds.