Failure to identify accused in Test Identification Parade warrants grant of bail on grounds of parity.

The applicant was arrested on January 10, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 05/2026 registered at Police Station Bankimongra for offenses under Sections 70, 123, 87, 351(2), and 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecution alleged that on January 8, 2026, co-accused Tarun Shrivas coerced the complainant into leaving her house by threatening to leak her photographs. The complainant was allegedly taken to a quarter, assaulted, sexually abused, and forced to consume alcohol by the accused persons

The applicant moved for regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, that the prosecutrix failed to identify him during the Test Identification Parade (TIP), and that a co-accused, Umesh Sahu, had already been granted bail by the same court

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the grounds of parity and lack of identifying evidence?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

It relied on the principle of judicial parity, noting that a similarly situated co-accused had been granted relief under M.Cr.C. No. 2401/2026

The Court also referenced Section 269 of the BNS regarding the consequences of non-attendance before the court and Section 209 of the BNS concerning failure to appear after a proclamation

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the procedural developments and evidentiary gaps.

It noted that the prosecutrix "categorically failed to identify the present applicant" during the Test Identification Parade (TIP), which weakened the prima facie link between the applicant and the alleged crime

The Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in judicial custody since January 10, 2026

Furthermore, the Court found the applicant’s case distinguishable from the main co-accused, Tarun Shrivas, and aligned with that of Umesh Sahu, who was already on bail

Given the lack of criminal antecedents and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary

The holding was based on parity with co-accused Umesh Sahu, the failure of the TIP, and the filing of the charge-sheet

The bail is subject to several conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence on trial dates under Section 269 of the BNS, and personal appearance for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS