Bail on parity is unavailable where co-accused were granted bail on distinguishable facts.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 128/2026 registered at Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(2)(b), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, between 2019 and 2024, the applicant, acting in concert with co-accused persons, fraudulently facilitated the opening of six bank accounts in the names of different individuals for receiving proceeds of cyber fraud. He allegedly received a commission of ₹15,000–₹20,000 for opening each account, and approximately ₹20,40,244 was credited into those accounts between 12 November 2023 and 24 September 2024.

This was the applicant’s second application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; his earlier application had been rejected on merits on 10 July 2026.

The applicant relied on his custody since 23 April 2026, the grant of bail or anticipatory bail to co-accused persons, absence of recovery from him, and the medical treatment required by his 14-month-old son.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations, the material in the case diary, and the rejection of his earlier bail application on merits.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused who had been granted regular or anticipatory bail.

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, the absence of recovery from him, and his son’s medical condition justified the grant of bail notwithstanding the merits of the prosecution case.

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

It also considered the substantive allegations under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(2)(b), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court applied the principle that parity in bail is not automatic; a co-accused can be relied upon only where the accused persons stand on materially similar facts and roles. Where the factual circumstances are distinguishable, bail cannot be granted merely because another accused has received such relief.

The Court also considered the significance of the applicant’s earlier bail application having been rejected on merits.

The Court examined the case diary and the orders granting bail or anticipatory bail to the co-accused.

Although the applicant relied on parity, the Court found that the co-accused had obtained relief on different factual circumstances and that the applicant’s case was distinguishable.

Consequently, the principle of parity was held inapplicable.

The applicant’s custody, alleged absence of recovery, and his child’s medical needs did not outweigh the circumstances already considered against him, particularly the earlier rejection of his bail application on merits.

The Court therefore found no sufficient ground to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant under Section 483 BNSS.

It held that the applicant was not entitled to bail on the basis of parity because the cases of the co-accused were factually distinguishable.

The Court nevertheless directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months from receipt of the order, subject to there being no legal impediment.