Bail parity is unavailable where knife injuries and exclusive weapon recovery are attributed to the applicant.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 129/2026, registered for offences under Sections 296, 109, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and others assaulted Lalit and Bhoj Manikpuri with a knife, inflicting injuries on vital parts of their bodies, including the abdomen; the knife was allegedly recovered from the applicant’s exclusive possession.

The applicant relied on the bail granted to two co-accused and submitted that he had been in custody since 18 March 2026 and that trial would take time. He also disclosed one live criminal antecedent.

The State opposed bail, distinguishing the co-accused because the knife injuries were attributed to the applicant.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations and the recovery of the knife from his possession.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the two co-accused who had been released on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was the statutory basis for the application for regular bail.

The Court considered the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the applicant’s attributed role, the recovery of the alleged weapon, and whether the roles of the bailed co-accused were comparable to that of the applicant.

The order cites no precedent establishing a separate legal test for bail or parity.

The Court found that the allegations directly attributed knife assaults on vital parts of the injured persons to the applicant and that the knife had been recovered from his exclusive possession.

It also noted that one injured person underwent surgery and remained hospitalised for a considerable period, indicating the seriousness of the injuries.

The Court rejected parity because the co-accused’s roles were confined to assaulting the injured persons with hands and fists, while the grievous knife injuries were attributed to the applicant.

In view of the applicant’s distinct role and the weapon recovery, the Court declined bail at that stage.

It rejected the applicant’s regular bail application.