Grant of bail on grounds of parity where co-accused is released and investigation is complete.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking regular bail.

He was arrested on December 9, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 154/2025 for allegedly forging documents to record names in revenue records for Government land and subsequently obtaining Kisan Credit Card (K.C.C.) loan facilities.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, the charge-sheet had been filed, and an identically situated co-accused had already been granted bail.

The State opposed bail citing the gravity of the offense and one criminal antecedent of an identical nature.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the principle of parity with a co-accused and the completion of the investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) governing regular bail applications.

It relied on the principle of parity, whereby an applicant may be entitled to bail if an identically situated co-accused has been granted similar relief.

Furthermore, the court considered the penal provisions of Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 338 (Forgery), 336(3) (Forgery of valuable security), and 347 (Forgery for purpose of cheating) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—involving the fraudulent appropriation of government land and bank funds—against the procedural status of the case.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in detention since December 9, 2025, and that the investigation was complete with the filing of the charge-sheet, reducing the likelihood of tampering with evidence.

Crucially, the Court observed that co-accused Amit Kumar Maurya had been granted bail on February 24, 2026, in MCRC No. 1900 of 2026.

Regarding the applicant’s criminal antecedent (Crime No. 201/2025), the Court noted it arose from the same cause of action and that the applicant had already secured bail in that matter.

Consequently, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The bail is subject to specific conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory physical presence during trial milestones (framing of charges/statement recording), and compliance with Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS regarding presence and non-abscondence.