Grant of bail on ground of parity where accused was implicated solely on memorandum statements.

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was arrested on November 14, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 302/2025 at Police Station Surajpur, involving cyber fraud allegations under Sections 420, 413, and 120(B) of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged the applicant arranged a bank account for monetary consideration; however, his implication was based solely on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons, with no direct recovery or transaction connecting him to the fraud.

The applicant claimed false implication due to a conspiracy and sought parity with co-accused Suresh Kumar and Rantu, who were granted bail on August 20, 2025.

The applicant has two criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity and the nature of evidence, despite having criminal antecedents.

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

It adhered to the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, where similarly situated accused persons (Suresh Kumar and Rantu) are granted similar relief.

The court also considered the evidentiary value of memorandum statements of co-accused, implying that such statements alone, without corroborative recovery or direct connection, weaken the necessity for continued pretrial detention.

Finally, it incorporated Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 84 of the BNSS to define conditions for the misuse of liberty.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations against the fact that the applicant's name did not appear in the original complaints and his implication rested entirely on the disclosure statements (memoranda) of other accused persons.

Although the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, the Court prioritized the lack of direct evidence—specifically the absence of financial transactions or physical recoveries—connecting him to the cyber fraud.

Relying on the principle of parity, the Court noted that co-accused individuals with similar roles had already been released by the same Court in MCRC No. 5695/2025.

Furthermore, given that the applicant had been in custody since November 2025 and the trial was expected to be protracted, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity and the nature of the evidence.

The release is subject to strict conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence at all trial dates; and (iii) strict compliance with court appearances during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS, failing which the trial court may revoke the bail.