Grant of regular bail on grounds of parity where co-accused were previously enlarged on bail.

The applicant, Ganesh Prasad Tamboli, sought regular bail after being arrested in connection with Crime No. 154/2025.

The prosecution alleged that unknown individuals fraudulently obtained the digital User ID of Patwari Krishna Kumar Sinha to create forged online revenue documents for lands in various villages.

The Patwari discovered the fraud after receiving a verification call from a bank and found discrepancies between the Bhuiyan Portal and manual records.

The applicant was implicated based on a memorandum statement recorded while he was already in custody for a separate offense (Crime No. 201/2025).

The applicant has been in jail since December 9, 2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on the principle of parity and the stage of the trial.

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

It also considered the substantive offenses under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 336(3) (forgery), 338 (forgery of valuable security), 347 (forged document or electronic record), and 112(2) (abetment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act (identity theft).

The court relied on the principle of parity, noting that co-accused persons (Amit Kumar Maurya, Komal Chand Sahu, and Ashok Kumar Uraon) had already been granted bail in similar circumstances.

The Court examined the nature and gravity of the offense but balanced these against the applicant’s period of detention, which commenced on December 9, 2025.

It noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court, suggesting that the investigation phase against the applicant was complete and he was no longer required for custodial interrogation.

Crucially, the Court observed that the case of the present applicant was identical to that of several co-accused who had already been released on bail.

Given that the trial was likely to take significant time to conclude, the Court found no justification for continued incarceration.

The bail was granted subject to strict conditions, including an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

The conditions also included mandatory presence at all trial dates personally or through counsel.

And specific requirements to appear during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS.

Any violation of these conditions would allow the trial court to treat it as an abuse of liberty and proceed in accordance with law.