Bail parity is unavailable where the accused’s role is materially distinct from that of the bailed co-accused.

The petitioners, Papun Bhuyan and Baya @ Bayadhar Bhuyan, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Sheragada P.S. Case No. 545 of 2023, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 35 of 2024, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aska, Ganjam.

They were charged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly murdering Mangala Gouda @ Bhuyan by assaulting him with sharp-cutting weapons.

The petitioners argued that the allegations against them were omnibus, that they had remained in custody for a substantial period, and that co-accused Surendra Bhuyan, their father, had already been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, relying on the allegations of assault, the post-mortem report disclosing incised and chopped wounds, and witness statements implicating the petitioners.

At the time of consideration, 17 of the 24 charge-sheeted witnesses had been examined and the trial was likely to conclude shortly.

1. Whether the petitioners, who were accused of directly assaulting the deceased with sharp-cutting weapons in a case under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC, were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Surendra Bhuyan, who had already been released on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s and Court of Session’s power to grant bail, while considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the material appearing against the accused, and the stage and likely duration of the trial.

The alleged offences were under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning murder, causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information, and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

The Court also applied the principle that bail on parity is not automatic; a co-accused can be treated as similarly situated only where the nature and extent of the allegations and role attributed to each accused are materially comparable.

The Court found that the allegations against both petitioners were not merely general or omnibus, but specifically concerned their participation in assaulting the deceased with sharp-cutting weapons.

This allegation was supported, at the bail stage, by the post-mortem report recording incised and chopped wounds and by statements of several witnesses implicating the petitioners.

The Court rejected the plea of parity because Surendra Bhuyan was allegedly attributed only the role of instigating the assault, whereas the principal allegation of physically assaulting the deceased was directed against the present petitioners.

Although 17 of 24 witnesses had been examined and the trial was expected to conclude soon, the Court considered the gravity and apparent direct involvement of the petitioners sufficient to decline bail.

It held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS and could not claim parity with co-accused Surendra Bhuyan, whose alleged role was materially different.

Bail applications BLAPL Nos. 5931 of 2026 and 1138 of 2026 were accordingly rejected and disposed of; an urgent certified copy was directed to be issued, with a soft copy forwarded to the trial court.