Bail may be granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused have already been enlarged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 45/2026 registered at Police Station Batouli, District Surguja, for alleged offences under Sections 333, 308(2), 119(1), 61(2), 3(5) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that five persons, posing as officers and wearing black coats, entered the complainant’s residence, questioned him regarding his Ayurveda practice certificate, extorted ₹50,000, and fled.

The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, and the applicant was subsequently arrested on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

No incriminating article was seized from him.

The applicant relied on the grant of bail to co-accused persons, the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 30 April 2026, and the likely delay in trial.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had three live criminal antecedents of a similar nature.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, the evidence collected, and his criminal antecedents.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who had already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench.

3. Whether the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and probable delay in trial justified release on bail.

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

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the evidentiary material against the applicant, the absence of any seizure from him, the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the principle of parity with similarly placed co-accused persons who had already been granted bail.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the order; the bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court found that the FIR had originally been registered against unknown persons and that the applicant’s implication was based on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

It further noted that no incriminating article had been seized from the applicant and that the co-accused had already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench.

Although the State relied on the applicant’s three criminal antecedents, the Court considered the applicant’s explanation regarding those antecedents, together with the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, custody since 30 April 2026, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

On these cumulative considerations, the Court held that the applicant made out a case for bail on the ground of parity.

The release was subject to conditions that he remain available for interrogation, refrain from influencing or threatening persons acquainted with the facts of the case, and not act in a manner prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.