Grant of regular bail on the ground of parity to co-accused in matters of financial fraud.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) following his arrest on October 30, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with others, illegally accessed the "Bhuiya" revenue software using a Patwari’s ID to forge land records ("Rin Pustika").

These forged documents were allegedly used to secure a loan from the State Bank of India in the name of one Dinu Ram Yadav.

The applicant was charged under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5), and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 66(C) and 61(2) of the I.T. Act.

The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of parity, noting that eight co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the same Court.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who have already been released.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

The court also applied the Principle of Parity, which dictates that if similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail, the same relief should be extended to the applicant unless there are distinguishing factors.

Furthermore, the court considered the procedural requirements of Section 269 (non-attendance), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 (failure to appear) of the BNS/BNSS to set conditions for the continued liberty of the applicant.

The Court observed that the nature and gravity of the offence were significant; however, it emphasized the period of the applicant's detention (since October 2025) and the filing of the charge-sheet.

The Court noted that the State did not dispute that eight other co-accused individuals (Amit Kumar Mourya, Ashok Kumar Uraon, and others) had been granted bail in related MCRC applications.

Although the applicant had one previous criminal antecedent of a similar nature, the Court found that he had already been granted bail in that matter.

Since the applicant's role and circumstances were identical to those of the co-accused already released, the Court determined that the principle of parity was applicable to the present case.

The holding was based on the principle of parity and the fact that the investigation was complete as the charge-sheet had been filed.

Release was made subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, a mandatory requirement to appear at key trial stages (framing of charges/Section 351 BNSS statements), and a warning that failure to appear would result in proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS.