Parity and lack of identification evidence warrant grant of regular bail in robbery cases.

The complainant alleged that while returning home, he was intercepted by unknown individuals on a motorcycle who had covered their faces with towels

The assailants purportedly assaulted the complainant with rods, sticks, and fists, resulting in head and limb injuries, and robbed him of approximately ₹10,000–12,000

Consequently, Crime No. 266/2025 was registered under Section 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against unknown persons

The applicants were arrested and, after being in judicial custody since late 2025 and early 2026, moved the High Court for regular bail

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and lack of direct identification

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail

Section 309(6) of the BNS

The Court further relied on the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused in the same crime had already been enlarged on bail

Procedural conditions for the continuation of bail were established under Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS

The Court evaluated the applicants’ contention that they were not identified in the FIR, as the assailants’ faces were covered, and that their implication rested solely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused without independent corroboration or recovery of incriminating articles

The Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court, indicating the completion of the primary investigation

Significant weight was given to the fact that co-accused Sagar Yadav had been granted bail by the same Court in October 2025, and the present applicants stood on a similar footing

Considering the duration of their incarceration (since December 2025 and January 2026) and the likelihood that the trial would not conclude soon, the Court determined that further detention was unwarranted

The Court held that the applicants were entitled to relief given the filing of the charge-sheet and the parity with the released co-accused

The release was conditioned upon the furnishing of personal bonds and two local sureties, alongside strict requirements to attend all trial proceedings and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments