CCTV footage establishing presence and continuity of involvement at a crime scene precludes parity with co-accused.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 587/2023 involving charges of murder and conspiracy.

On the night of October 26-27, 2023, a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) was seen fleeing a crime scene with a knife.

The victim’s body was discovered with multiple stab wounds; subsequently, the CCL surrendered at the police station, confessing that he and co-accused Akash committed the murder.

Investigation revealed the applicant accompanied the CCL and Akash to the site after being informed of the victim's location by another co-accused, Neeraj.

The applicant sought parity with Neeraj, who was granted bail on January 28, 2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Neeraj.

2. Whether the gravity of the applicant's role relative to the CCTV evidence justifies incarceration pending trial.

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC (corresponding to the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) in the context of Sections 302 (Murder), 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), and 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC, alongside Sections 25, 27, and 29 of the Arms Act.

The court relied on the doctrine of parity in bail jurisprudence, which postulations that similarly situated accused individuals should be treated equally, provided their roles and the evidence against them are substantially identical.

The Court rejected the plea of parity, distinguishing the applicant’s role from that of Neeraj. While it was previously unclear if Neeraj knew the information he provided would lead to a killing, the Court examined CCTV footage demonstrating the applicant's active and continuous involvement.

The footage showed a "clear timeline" where the applicant entered the lane with co-accused Akash, called out to the CCL, and remained present during the commencement of the stabbing.

The Court observed that the applicant was visible in the footage during the assault, whereas Neeraj's involvement was limited to a disclosure of location with no proven material suggesting he was aware of the conspiracy to murder.

Consequently, the applicant’s presence at the scene and coordination with the executioners marked a "far more serious" role than that of the bailed co-accused.

In view of the seriousness of the offence and the evidentiary link provided by the CCTV footage, the application for regular bail was dismissed.

The Court clarified that these observations are preliminary and shall not prejudice the final trial.