Grant of regular bail on grounds of parity and limited overt participation in alleged assault

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on May 7, 2025, in connection with an incident occurring on May 5, 2025.

It was alleged that the main accused, Lingaraj, along with others (including the applicant), forcibly entered the complainant's house, dragged a victim into the street, and assaulted two individuals with sharp-edged weapons.

The applicant was charged under Sections 296, 115(1), 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, no weapon was recovered from his person, and witnesses only supported allegations against the main accused.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s presence in the unlawful assembly and his two previous criminal antecedents from 2017 and 2024.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, based on the principle of parity and the nature of his alleged involvement?

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

The court applied the doctrine of parity in bail, referencing the previous release of a similarly situated co-accused, Vinay Baghel, in MCRC No. 1752/2026.

The court assessed the gravity of the offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically considering the distinction between "simple injury" and "grievous assault" in the context of individual participation within an unlawful assembly.

The court reasoned that while the applicant was allegedly present at the scene, the "principal and grievous role" of the assault was specifically attributed to the co-accused, Lingaraj.

It noted that the specific injury attributed to the applicant was "simple in nature" and that recent testimonies from material witnesses did not disclose an "overt act of serious assault" by him.

The court highlighted that only 6 out of 22 witnesses had been examined, suggesting a prolonged trial.

Despite the State’s concern regarding the applicant’s criminal history (2017 and 2024), the court determined that his role was comparatively limited and that he deserved parity with the co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions: he must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at all trial stages including charge framing and Section 351 BNSS statements, and faces proceedings under Section 209 BNS if he absconds.