Parity and prolonged detention justify bail grant notwithstanding criminal antecedents and seizure of assault weapon.

The applicant was arrested on October 30, 2025, in connection with an incident occurring on October 28, 2025, near Lormi, District Mungeli

It is alleged that the applicant and several co-accused verbally abused and physically assaulted the complainant’s brothers, Shom and Khush Kashyap, using an iron rod, resulting in serious injuries

The police registered Crime No. 604/2025 for multiple offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

The applicant sought regular bail, citing the prolonged period of detention and the fact that three co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court in February and March 2026

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on the grounds of parity and the completion of the investigation

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

It considered various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 296 (obscene acts), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 191(2) & (3) (rioting), and 111 (organized crime), alongside Section 25 of the Arms Act

The court also applied the judicial principle of parity, which dictates that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail

The court weighed the State’s opposition—which highlighted the applicant's prior criminal record (Crime No. 223/2025) and the recovery of an iron rod used in the assault—against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the applicant had been in custody since October 2025 and that the filing of the charge-sheet indicated that no further custodial investigation was required

Crucially, the court emphasized that three co-accused involved in the same transaction had already been granted bail by the same Court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 1292, 1631, and 2189 of 2026

Despite the medical reports confirming injuries caused by hard and blunt objects, the court determined that the principle of parity and the anticipated length of the trial outweighed the objections raised by the prosecution

The court held that the applicant was entitled to parity with the co-accused who were previously released

The bail was granted subject to the furnishing of a personal bond with two sureties and strict conditions, including a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments and a mandate to appear at all critical stages of the trial

The court further noted that any deliberate absence would be treated as an abuse of the liberty of bail