Bail parity is unavailable where the applicant’s specific overt act materially distinguishes his role.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 144/2026 registered at Police Station Pachpedi, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 109, 296, 351(3), 115(2), 190, 191(2) and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 17 May 2026, following a motorcycle collision, the complainant and Nimesh Rai were allegedly assaulted by the applicant and other accused persons with belts, lathis, sticks, bricks and other weapons.

Nimesh Rai sustained injuries to his head, ear, lip and face, including a fracture of the parietal bone, and was hospitalised.

The applicant’s involvement was allegedly disclosed through memorandum statements, and one belt was seized from him.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits on 13 August 2026.

In the present second bail application, he relied on the grant of bail to six co-accused persons, the filing of the charge-sheet, and his custody since 19 May 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the second bail application on the grounds of parity with co-accused, filing of the charge-sheet and prolonged custody.

Whether the applicant’s case was distinguishable from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail, considering the specific allegation that he assaulted the injured person with a belt and the serious nature of the injuries.

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 allegations under Sections 109, 296, 351(3), 115(2), 190, 191(2) and 191(3) of the BNS.

The Court applied the principle that parity in bail is not automatic and that a co-accused can be treated differently where the applicant has a distinct and more serious role or a specific overt act attributed to him.

The filing of the charge-sheet and the period of custody do not, by themselves, justify bail where the applicant’s individual role and the seriousness of the injuries weigh against release.

The Court noted that the applicant’s first bail application had already been rejected on merits because the injured Nimesh Rai had suffered a grievous, life-threatening parietal bone fracture and the applicant had been attributed a specific overt act in the assault.

Although six co-accused had been granted bail, their cases were materially different: they were alleged to have assaulted the injured person with hands and fists, whereas the present applicant was specifically alleged to have used a belt, which was also seized from him.

Consequently, the principle of parity was held inapplicable.

The subsequent filing of the charge-sheet and the applicant’s custody did not constitute sufficient grounds to overcome the distinguishing facts and the seriousness of the alleged conduct.

The second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was rejected because the applicant’s specific role, alleged use of a belt, and the serious injuries suffered by the victim distinguished his case from that of the co-accused granted bail.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to it for information and compliance.