Parity and acquittal in prior cases justify second bail despite previous rejection on merits.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, stole a mobile phone from the complainant, transferred funds from the complainant’s bank account, and subsequently disposed of the SIM card

Consequently, the applicant was charged under Sections 379, 420/34, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been in custody since December 9, 2024

The applicant’s first bail application was previously rejected on merits on September 9, 2025

The applicant moved this second application citing parity, as a co-accused was granted bail on February 11, 2026, and noted that while he has four criminal antecedents, he has been acquitted in all of them

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to grant of regular bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused and the status of the ongoing trial

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the powers of the High Court regarding bail

the principle of parity, which dictates that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally concerning the grant of bail

procedural requirements for appearance and conduct during trial as stipulated under Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS

The Court evaluated the nature and gravity of the allegations alongside the change in circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application.

It noted that the trial is currently underway, with 15 out of 25 witnesses already examined

Although the applicant has four criminal antecedents, the Court observed that these resulted in acquittals, thereby mitigating their impact on the present application

The Court specifically highlighted that the case of the applicant is identical to that of a co-accused who was granted bail in a second application on February 11, 2026

Reasoning that the trial is likely to take more time and that the applicant has been incarcerated for over a year, the Court determined that the ground of parity was sufficient to warrant the exercise of discretionary power in favor of the applicant

The Court held that despite the previous rejection on merits, the applicant's acquittal in prior cases and the grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused justified release

The bail was made subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments and mandatory appearance at key trial stages