Grant of Regular Bail on Ground of Parity and Completion of Investigation Despite Criminal Antecedents

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

On 28.10.2025, the complainant and his family were allegedly intercepted by the applicant and co-accused.

It is alleged that co-accused Vishal Dhruv struck victims with an iron rod, while the applicant was allegedly armed with a blade and assisted in wrongful restraint and verbal abuse.

The applicant was arrested on 28.10.2025 for offenses under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 126(2), 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

A previous bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, on 03.01.2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity and the nature of his involvement in the alleged crime.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail.

It also considered the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, where similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted relief.

The substantive offenses were governed by various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The Court balanced the gravity of the offense against the specific role attributed to the applicant.

It noted that the primary allegations of assault with a deadly weapon (iron rod) were directed at co-accused Vishal Dhruv rather than the applicant.

The Court found that two similarly situated co-accused, Chhotu Dhruw and Arun Anant, had already been granted bail by the same High Court in February 2026.

Although the State Counsel opposed the bail citing the applicant's three previous criminal antecedents, the Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in custody since 28.10.2025.

Consequently, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary as the trial would likely take time.

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: participating in all court proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments, appearing for charge framing/statements, and following procedures under Section 269 of the BNS in case of absence.

The Court held that the applicant’s role and the previous release of co-accused justified the grant of bail despite his criminal history.