Bail parity is unavailable where the applicant’s role and evidentiary material materially differ from co-accused.

The applicants sought their first bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), after being arrested on 17 April 2026 in Crime No. 110/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur, for offences under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the police raided a Honda City car on 13 April 2026 after receiving information regarding online cricket betting through the “3 Stumps” application. Co-accused Mandeep Singh was arrested at the spot, and a mobile phone and ₹95,000 in cash were seized from him. His memorandum statement allegedly disclosed the operation of an online betting syndicate involving several persons and transactions through mobile phones and bank accounts.

During investigation, co-accused Gulshan alias Babu Khemani allegedly disclosed the involvement of the present applicants in managing cash and fund transactions connected with the gambling activities. Mobile phones seized from the applicants allegedly contained screenshots relating to online gambling. The charge-sheet was filed on 10 June 2026.

The applicants relied on the Supreme Court’s grant of bail to co-accused Mandeep Singh and Gulshan alias Babu Khemani, and contended that their cases were stronger because they had not been arrested at the spot.

The State opposed bail, relying upon the rejection of bail applications filed by several other co-accused persons by the High Court.

Whether the applicants, who were allegedly involved in managing cash and fund transactions for an online gambling syndicate, were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, while considering the allegations under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and Section 112(2) of the BNS, 2023.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the prima facie material collected during investigation, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to each applicant, and the status of the investigation.

The principle of parity is not automatic; bail granted to a co-accused does not entitle another accused to bail where the role attributed to, or the material against, that accused is materially different.

The Court found that the case diary contained prima facie material linking the applicants to the online gambling syndicate operating through the “3 Stumps” platform. This material included the memorandum statements of co-accused persons and electronic data extracted from the applicants’ mobile phones.

The applicants were specifically alleged to have managed cash and fund transactions, while the wider network involved multiple accused persons, bank accounts, mobile phones and electronic devices operating across Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Goa.

The Court declined to apply parity merely because Mandeep Singh and Gulshan alias Babu Khemani had obtained bail from the Supreme Court, observing that their bail orders had to be assessed in light of their specific roles and the material available against them.

In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations and the prima facie material against the applicants, the Court held that they were not entitled to bail.

It held that the applicants’ alleged involvement in managing financial transactions of the online gambling syndicate, supported by co-accused statements and electronic evidence, justified denial of bail.

The plea of parity with the co-accused released by the Supreme Court was rejected as inapplicable on the facts.

Consequently, the bail applications of Laxman Rao, Vaibhav Khandewal, Ranjeet Kumar Paswan and Aashish Jadhav were rejected.