Bail is warranted on parity where similarly situated co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.

The applicants were arrested on 25 March 2026 in connection with an alleged illegal call centre operating from Raipur, which was said to have defrauded U.S.-based citizens through loan-related schemes and threats of “digital arrest.”

The prosecution alleged that the applicants were associated with the call centre; one applicant was alleged to be a company director and to have executed a lease agreement.

Electronic devices and forged documents were seized, and the charge-sheet was filed.

The applicants sought bail, relying, among other grounds, on parity with three co-accused who had been granted bail by a coordinate Bench on 1 September 2026.

The State opposed bail but did not dispute that the co-accused had been released on bail.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.

2. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ period in custody, and the circumstances of the case supported release on bail subject to conditions.

The Court considered the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 112(2), and, in certain applications, Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act.

It applied the principle of parity in bail: where similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail, parity may support granting bail to an applicant, subject to consideration of the case’s facts, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the period of custody.

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench’s bail order in MCRC No. 8083 of 2026, dated 1 September 2026.

The Court considered the seriousness of the alleged organised cyber fraud, but also noted that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicants had remained in custody since 25 March 2026, and similarly situated co-accused had already been released on bail.

The State did not dispute the grant of bail to those co-accused. On those circumstances, the Court concluded that the applicants were entitled to the benefit of parity.

It directed that each applicant be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The applicants were also required not to influence or threaten persons acquainted with the facts, not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and to attend every hearing until disposal of the trial.