Bail may be granted on parity where a co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

The petitioner, accused No. 2, sought regular bail in a case arising from a land dispute and registered for offences under Sections 302, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution alleged that, during a confrontation over cattle entering the deceased’s land, the petitioner struck the deceased’s vital body parts with a stone, while accused No. 1 assaulted him with a neem-tree branch.

The deceased later died from shock and haemorrhage caused by multiple bodily injuries.

The investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had been filed.

The co-ordinate Bench had previously granted bail to accused No. 1.

The petitioner applied for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail, having regard to the allegations, the completed investigation and the applicable bail considerations.

Whether the grant of bail to accused No. 1 supported granting bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity.

The Court considered the petitioner’s application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It applied the general principles governing bail: the Court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the accused’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of absconding, reoffending or tampering with evidence, and the accused’s character and antecedents; a bail hearing is not a mini-trial.

The Court also considered parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail.

No external precedent was cited.

The Court considered the petitioner’s alleged role—assaulting the deceased with a stone on vital parts—and the post-mortem finding that death resulted from multiple bodily injuries caused by a blunt object.

It nevertheless concluded that, at that stage, there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds to believe prima facie that the petitioner was guilty of the offences alleged.

The investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed; the Court also noted that accused No. 1 had been granted bail.

Having regard to these circumstances and the relevant risks associated with release, it found that bail could be granted subject to conditions.

The conditions required him not to threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, to attend trial as required, not to commit similar or other offences, and to cooperate with the investigation when required.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if any condition is breached.