Parity and completion of investigation justify grant of regular bail in murder proceedings.

The complainant, Yogeshwar Kaushik, lodged an FIR alleging that on August 16, 2025, the applicant and three others assaulted Devendra Kaushik near a petrol pump in Bilaspur.

CCTV footage allegedly depicted the applicant inflicting injuries with a club (danda), while other accused persons used their hands and fists.

The victim succumbed to his injuries during treatment, leading to the addition of Section 103 of the BNS.

The applicant was arrested on November 10, 2025.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the club was seized by police on August 17, 2025, prior to the applicant's arrest, and thus no recovery was made pursuant to his memorandum statement.

It was further noted that three co-accused individuals had already been granted bail.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the filing of the charge sheet and the principle of parity.

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

The applicant was charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for offences including Section 103 (Murder), Section 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), Section 351(3) (Criminal intimidation), Section 238 (Causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 3(5) (Joint liability).

The court also invoked procedural safeguards under Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNS/BNSS to ensure the applicant's appearance during trial and prevent the abuse of liberty.

The Court's reasoning centered on the completion of the investigation and the status of co-accused persons.

It observed that the charge sheet had already been filed before the competent court.

The Court placed significant weight on the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Kishan Kumar Sahu and Hitesh Manikpuri had been granted anticipatory bail, while Pintu Tandon @ Rehan had been granted regular bail by the same Court.

The Court considered the applicant's period of detention since November 10, 2025, and determined that as the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude, continued incarceration was not warranted.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant's undertaking not to seek adjournments during witness testimony and mandatory personal appearance during key trial stages, such as the framing of charges and recording of statements.

The Court warned that any violation of bail conditions or failure to appear would result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.