Grant of bail based on parity and lack of criminal antecedents despite use of firearm.

On September 24, 2025, an unidentified person with a covered face allegedly fired a shot at the gate of complainant Afreen Bano’s residence in village Kasaniya

FIR No. 340/2025 was registered at P.S. Katghora for offenses involving criminal conspiracy and firearms

The Applicant was arrested on September 25, 2025, on allegations of being involved in the incident as part of the group of accused persons

The Applicant moved the High Court seeking regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and that three identically situated co-accused had already been granted bail

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on the principle of parity and the lack of specific injury caused during the incident

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

Principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, observing that co-accused persons—Ashish Kumar Jangde, Bablu Das, and Shakti Singh—had been granted bail in MCRC Nos. 1544, 1775, and 2017 of 2026

Sections 109(1) (Punishment of abetment), 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the Applicant's period of detention (since September 25, 2025) and the progress of the investigation

While the State opposed bail citing the nature of the act—firing at a residence to create fear—the Court noted that the State could not dispute that no physical injury was caused to any individual

Crucially, the Court found the Applicant's role to be identical to those of the three co-accused already released on bail

Given that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the Applicant maintained a clean criminal record, the Court reasoned that further incarceration was unnecessary as the trial would take considerable time to conclude

The Court ordered the Applicant's release on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to conditions including: mandatory attendance at trial, filing an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, and strict compliance with Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita regarding presence and proclamation