Parity and hostility of prosecution witnesses justify grant of regular bail under BNSS.

The applicants sought regular bail for offenses involving the fraudulent issuance of SIM cards and opening of bank accounts using fake identities.

Following a Cyber Cell inquiry, it was alleged that co-accused persons obtained SIM cards in the names of villagers and opened multiple bank accounts, retaining the passbooks and ATM cards for unauthorized transactions.

Applicant Amleshwar Kumar Vaishnav allegedly facilitated this by collecting documents from villagers, while applicant Vinay Prajapati allegedly shared bank accounts and SIM cards with co-accused.

Amleshwar was arrested on May 30, 2025, and Vinay on August 26, 2025.

Both applicants maintained their innocence, citing the hostile testimony of the only two prosecution witnesses examined thus far and the prior grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused, Ravi Kumar Kashyap.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the ground of parity and the lack of progress in the trial.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 regarding regular bail.

It applied the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, referencing its previous order in Ravi Kumar Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRC No. 1649/2026).

Substantive charges were noted under Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 3(5) (Joint Liability), 319(2) (Cheating by Personation), and 111(2) (Organized Crime) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act (Identity Theft).

The Court observed that the case of the present applicants was identical to that of co-accused Ravi Kumar Kashyap, who had already been granted bail.

The Court emphasized that out of 20 prosecution witnesses, only two had been examined, and both had turned hostile, significantly weakening the prosecution's immediate stance.

Additionally, the Court noted that the applicants had no previous criminal antecedents and had been in custody for several months (since May and August 2025, respectively).

Given that the charge sheet had been filed and the trial was expected to be protracted, the Court determined that further incarceration was not warranted.

The applicants were ordered to be released on personal bonds with two sureties each, subject to conditions including: (i) non-seeking of adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) mandatory presence at trial dates; and (iii) strict compliance with procedures under Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS to prevent abuse of liberty.