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

Following a complaint by a Patwari, the investigation alleged that forged Chhattisgarh domicile certificates had been created to secure an advantage in CRPF recruitment.

The applicant was alleged to have obtained a forged certificate through Vivek Tomar, prepared with the assistance of co-accused Omprakash Chandravanshi using another person’s documents.

The accused were charge-sheeted on documentary evidence and call-detail records.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 318(2), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

He had been in custody since 28 May 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations and the stage of the investigation.

Whether the grant of bail to co-accused persons supported release of the applicant on the principle of parity.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period in custody, the need for further custodial interrogation, and parity with co-accused who had been granted bail.

The Court relied on the bail orders in MCRC/7686/2026 and MCRC/7817/2026 as relevant to parity.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but noted that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 28 May 2026, and no further custodial interrogation was required.

It also considered that two co-accused had been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench.

Applying parity and without commenting on the merits, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring availability for police interrogation when required, non-interference with persons acquainted with the case, and conduct not prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and that the trial Court must decide the case on its own merits.