Bail is warranted on parity where co-accused are similarly placed and investigation is complete.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 45/2026 registered at Police Station Batauli, District Surguja, for offences under Sections 308(2), 333, 119(1), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 20 April 2026, four men and a woman arrived at the complainant’s residence, demanded ₹3,00,000 by threatening the complainant and his wife with arrest, and that the woman assaulted the complainant’s wife and removed ₹50,000 from an almirah.

The applicants contended that the FIR was initially against unknown persons, that their names were not mentioned therein, that they were members of the Anti-Crime Anti-Corruption Human Rights Organization, and that they had been falsely implicated.

They further relied on the absence of any seizure from them, the grant of bail to co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and their custody since 30 April 2026.

The State opposed the application.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in respect of the offences alleged against them?

Whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj, particularly when the FIR initially named unknown persons, no seizure was made from the applicants, and the investigation was complete?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the applicants’ period of custody, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, and parity with a similarly placed co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 308(2), 333, 119(1), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court found that the applicants had established circumstances justifying bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

It gave weight to the fact that the FIR had initially been registered against unknown persons, no seizure had been effected from the applicants, and co-accused Anila Aishwarya Minj had already been granted bail by the High Court in a connected matter.

The applicants were therefore considered similarly placed for purposes of parity.

The Court also noted that the investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicants had remained in custody since 30 April 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

These factors collectively justified release on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring attendance at trial, refraining from seeking adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and compliance with the consequences prescribed for absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned trial court for compliance.