Grant of bail on ground of parity to retired officials where primary allegations of forgery lie against the co-accused.

The applicants, retired Revenue Inspectors, were arrested on February 5, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 241/2018 registered at Police Station Bankimongra.

The complainant alleged that in 2018, a demarcation team (including the applicants) prepared a report favoring encroachers on his land.

A subsequent inquiry report by a second team suggested that the demarcation documents were manipulated to provide illegal benefits to certain individuals.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants, as members of the team, signed the manipulated panchnama.

However, the applicants contended that the primary allegations of interpolation were directed at the co-accused, J.P. Singh (In-charge of the team), who has already been granted bail.

A charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicants have been in custody since February 5, 2026.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of allegations and the principle of parity.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail.

It also considered Sections 420 (cheating), 467, 468, 471 (forgery), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The court relied on the principle of parity in bail, where an accused may be granted relief if a co-accused with more significant or similar roles has been released.

Procedural compliance was mandated under Sections 269 (non-attendance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), and 209 (failure to appear) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court analyzed the case by weighing the gravity of the offense against the specific roles of the applicants.

It noted that the FIR was registered in 2018, yet the applicants were only taken into custody in 2026 after the charge-sheet was filed, suggesting no immediate flight risk or need for custodial interrogation.

The Court observed that the primary allegations of "manipulation and interpolation" were directed at J.P. Singh, the team leader, rather than the applicants, who merely signed the panchnama in their official capacity as members.

Since the main accused (J.P. Singh) was already enlarged on bail, the Court found the applicants entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

Additionally, the court noted the absence of criminal antecedents and the likelihood that the trial would consume considerable time.

The applicants were ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions: they must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must remain present on all trial dates (specifically for framing charges and recording statements under Section 351 of BNSS), and must comply with BNS provisions regarding appearance.

The holding emphasizes that continued detention was unjustified given the filing of the charge-sheet and the applicants' secondary role in the alleged offense.