Grant of bail on grounds of parity with co-accused enlarged by the Supreme Court.

The applicant, Pradeep Jain, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He was arrested in connection with Crime No. 4/2024 for allegedly participating in a stock market trading fraud

The complainant alleged he was induced via WhatsApp to invest in a fake trading app ("Asamtop"), resulting in a loss of ₹59,23,000/-

Investigations revealed that the applicant’s bank account, ATM, and SIM were used for the fraudulent transactions, which the applicant admitted to providing to others for monetary gain

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 1894/2026) was rejected on merits on 24.02.2026

The current application is based on a new ground: a co-accused, Pratap Patra, was granted bail by the Supreme Court on 10.04.2026 after his initial bail was rejected by the High Court

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail by the Supreme Court after the applicant's prior rejection on merits

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

It applied the principle of parity in criminal jurisprudence, where an accused may be entitled to bail if a similarly situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail by a superior court

The Court also referenced procedural conditions for bail under Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS respectively, to ensure the presence of the accused during trial

The Court noted that while the applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits, the legal landscape changed with the Supreme Court’s order in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5893/2026

In that case, the co-accused Pratap Patra—whose situation was deemed similar to the applicant’s—was granted bail despite earlier rejections by the High Court

The High Court observed that the State could not dispute the similarity of the applicant's case to that of the co-accused

Consequently, despite the gravity of the ₹59 lakh fraud and the applicant’s admission regarding the use of his bank account, the Court found that the intervention of the Apex Court in a related matter justified a reconsideration of the applicant's custody

The Court allowed the second bail application. The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to conditions including mandatory presence at trial, no seeking of adjournments, and strict compliance with Sections 269, 84, and 209 of the BNS/BNSS to prevent abuse of liberty