Bail may be granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused, including those with criminal antecedents, have been released.

The petitioner, Accused No. 3, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Special Case No. 169 of 2026, arising from Crime No. 208 of 2025 registered by Kota Police Station.

The FIR followed a complaint by CW1, who reported that his son, CW2, had allegedly been kidnapped and that ransom had been demanded.

The petitioner was arrested on 7 December 2025; after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against nine persons. His bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected on 1 June 2026.

Accused Nos. 4 to 9 had been granted bail by the High Court in connected criminal petitions, and the petitioner relied on parity.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity with Accused Nos. 4 to 9, who had already been granted bail.

Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents justified refusing bail despite the circumstances relied on in favour of the other accused.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The Court applied the principle of parity, under which bail may be granted to an accused where the material circumstances are substantially similar to those of co-accused already granted bail.

It relied on its earlier order in Crl.P. No. 9373/2026 c/w Crl.P. No. 3739/2026, including the findings that the ransom allegations were not supported by the statements of CW1 and CW3 in the manner alleged, that the victim had been released on the day of the incident without injuries, and that the investigation was complete.

The Court considered the earlier bail order’s reasoning applicable to the petitioner.

The statements discussed in that order indicated that CW3 had not said CW2 told him he was kidnapped or that kidnappers demanded ransom; the Court also noted circumstances suggesting that CW2 and CW3 may have devised the kidnapping story.

The petitioner’s two prior criminal cases were raised by the prosecution, but the Court observed that the co-accused who had been granted bail also had criminal antecedents.

It therefore found no basis to distinguish the petitioner for bail purposes and held that parity warranted release.

These included executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; attending trial unless exempted; not threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses; not involving himself in similar offences; and not leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.