Grant of regular bail on grounds of parity and lack of direct incriminating evidence from possession.

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

On September 1, 2025, a complainant alleged that three unknown persons committed robbery at gunpoint, taking a motorcycle and ₹4,500.

The applicant was later arrested and charged under Sections 309(4), 311, 312, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicant argued that the FIR was against unknown persons, he was implicated solely on the memorandum of a co-accused, and no looted property was seized from his exclusive possession.

The applicant noted that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail by the trial court.

The State opposed bail citing 08 criminal antecedents and the gravity of the offence.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the evidence and the principle of parity.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

Sections 309(4) (robbery), 311 (robbery with attempt to cause death/hurt), 312, and 3(5) (common intention) of the BNS, alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court also observed the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence and the requirement to evaluate criminal antecedents while balancing the right to liberty when a trial is likely to be prolonged.

The Court observed that the applicant was not named in the initial FIR and was implicated primarily based on the memorandum statement of a co-accused.

The Court noted the absence of any recovery of the looted property from the applicant’s "conscious and exclusive possession".

Regarding the applicant’s criminal profile, the court acknowledged 08 antecedents but noted that 04 had already been disposed of.

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that a similarly situated co-accused, Harmeet Singh @ Meeta, had been granted bail by the trial court.

Given that the charge-sheet was already filed and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court determined that continued detention was not warranted despite the seriousness of the charges.

The holding is contingent upon strict conditions, including the filing of an undertaking to not seek unnecessary adjournments [para. 8(i)], mandatory presence during key trial stages [para. 8(iv)], and consequences for non-appearance under Section 269 and Section 209 of the BNS/BNSS [para. 8(ii)-(iii)].

The Court directed that the trial court be notified immediately for compliance.