Grant of parity-based bail where main overt act is attributed to co-accused and complainant turns hostile.

The appellant, Vijay Ahirwar, was arrested on July 11, 2025, in connection with the murder of one Subhash (Crime No. 241/2025).

The prosecution alleged that the deceased was assaulted by four named and several unknown persons.

The appellant’s bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was rejected by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Datia, on April 28, 2026.

The appellant moved the High Court seeking bail on grounds that the fatal gunshot was attributed to co-accused Jeetu Kushwaha, the investigation was complete, and the complainant (the deceased’s father) had turned hostile during trial in April 2026.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to be released on bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused and the hostile testimony of the primary witness?

Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which governs appeals against orders refusing bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding bail provisions.

The court relied on the principle of Parity in Bail, noting that co-accused persons (Bade alias Harishankar Kushwaha and Pitte alias Taj Khan) had already been granted bail in CRA Nos. 3817/2026 and 5490/2026.

The court examined the appellant’s role relative to the other accused and found that the specific allegation of firing the fatal shot was directed at co-accused Jeetu Kushwaha, not the appellant.

The court took significant note of the procedural status—specifically that the charge-sheet had been filed and the trial was expected to take a long duration.

Crucially, the court observed that the father of the deceased, acting as the complainant, did not support the prosecution's case against the appellant during trial.

Given that the State did not dispute the parity with other released co-accused, the court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The court held that the appellant is entitled to bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The release is contingent upon conditions including cooperation with the trial, non-tampering with evidence, and a prohibition on leaving India without prior permission.