Inconsistencies between FIR and CCTV evidence justify bail on grounds of parity and investigative contradictions.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 357/2024 (PS Chitranjan Park) involving allegations of a daylight robbery.

According to the prosecution, the applicant and co-accused forcibly entered the house of a jeweler on November 28, 2024, and snatched an anklet from the complainant’s wife.

The FIR was registered after a two-day delay.

The prosecution’s narrative fluctuated regarding the number of assailants, initially citing 3-4 persons and later claiming 10.

The applicant sought parity with co-accused persons who had already been granted bail by the High Court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence.

2. Whether the discrepancies between the FIR, the IO’s statements, and the varying CCTV footages warrant the continued incarceration of the accused pending trial.

The court considered the principles governing the grant of regular bail, primarily focusing on Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the specific charges under Sections 309(6), 310(2), 311, 317(3), 61(2), and 3(5) of the BNS, alongside Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

The court relied on the doctrine of parity, ensuring that similarly situated co-accused receive equal treatment in bail matters.

The court noted significant contradictions in the prosecution's case.

While the FIR alleged 3-4 intruders and the snatching of one anklet, the IO later claimed 10 intruders and the snatching of two anklets.

Furthermore, the court observed that three different CCTV footages had been presented across various bail hearings for different co-accused, none of which perfectly matched the narrative in the FIR.

The court questioned the logic of 9-10 armed persons entering a jeweler's home only to flee with a single anklet, as well as the unexplained two-day delay in filing the complaint.

Given that these factual discrepancies are matters for trial and that co-accused persons had already been granted bail, the court found no compelling reason to keep the applicant in custody.

The bail application was allowed, and the court directed the applicant to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

All accompanying applications were disposed of accordingly.