Bail may be granted on parity despite criminal antecedents where similarly placed co-accused are enlarged.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 389/2025 registered at Police Station Sarsiwan, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, for offences under Sections 318(2), 336(3), 336(4), 338, 340(2), 341(1), 341(2), 3(5), 61, 249(2) and 238(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused had earlier defrauded approximately 400–500 investors of about ₹30–35 crores. It was further alleged that bank accounts frozen during the investigation were unlawfully unfrozen through a forged application bearing a counterfeit seal of the Station House Officer, and that ₹10 lakhs was withdrawn from an HDFC Bank hold account.

The applicant claimed false implication and sought bail on the ground of parity, pointing out that co-accused persons, including Ritu Sahu—allegedly involved in a larger withdrawal—had already been granted bail. He had remained in custody since 3 April 2026 and contended that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had three criminal antecedents, but fairly acknowledged that the co-accused had been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations, his period of custody, and the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused.

2. Whether the applicant’s three criminal antecedents constituted sufficient ground to deny bail despite the principle of parity and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial.

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

It applied the principle of parity, under which an accused may ordinarily receive similar bail treatment where co-accused in comparable circumstances have already been enlarged on bail, subject to distinguishing factors.

The Court also considered the settled bail factors of the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The bail order was made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court considered that the applicant had been in custody since 3 April 2026 and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

More significantly, co-accused persons in the connected proceedings had already been granted bail, including Ritu Sahu, who was alleged to have withdrawn an amount greater than that attributed to the applicant.

The State’s acknowledgment that the co-accused had obtained bail reinforced the applicant’s parity claim.

Although the applicant had three criminal antecedents, the Court held that this factor did not justify differential treatment in the circumstances, particularly where similarly placed co-accused had already been released on bail.

Balancing these considerations, the Court found that the applicant deserved bail without adjudicating the merits of the allegations.

The applicant, Shiva Sahu @ Chhotu Sahu, was directed to be released in Crime No. 389/2025 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present before the trial court on every date either personally or through counsel, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The order further authorised appropriate proceedings in the event of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.

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