Bail parity is unavailable where CCTV identification and recovery evidence distinguish the applicant from a co-accused.

On 13 January 2025, Sitaram Jaiswal and Annapurna Jaiswal were found murdered at their home in Raigarh.

The prosecution alleged that Kishan Sharma and co-accused Atul Dansena planned to commit theft, forcibly entered the house, and assaulted the deceased with an iron rod. CCTV footage allegedly showed the applicant and Atul Dansena leaving the vicinity on a motorcycle; blood-stained clothes were also stated to have been seized at the applicant’s instance.

The applicant had been in custody since 21 January 2025. Of 45 prosecution witnesses, five had been examined when the application was considered. His first bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and claimed parity with co-accused Divya Sarathi, who had been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the allegations and material collected against him.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to parity with co-accused Divya Sarathi, who had been enlarged on bail.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court assessed the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and the material collected during investigation, including the alleged CCTV identification and seizure of blood-stained clothes.

It also considered parity, concluding that it did not apply where the co-accused’s case rested solely on memorandum statements, while additional incriminating material was alleged against the applicant.

No judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court distinguished the applicant’s case from Divya Sarathi’s because her implication was based solely on co-accused statements, whereas the applicant was allegedly identified in CCTV footage and blood-stained clothes were seized at his instance.

It also considered the allegations that he actively participated in the forcible entry and killings, together with the gravity of the offences and the material available against him. The Court therefore rejected the parity claim and found no basis to grant bail.

The Court rejected his application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 24/2025, registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2), 331(8) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.