Parity and prolonged incarceration warrant bail in second application despite prior rejection on merits.

The complainant was allegedly induced via a Google advertisement for "BN Rathi Securities" and a subsequent WhatsApp group to invest money, resulting in a loss of approximately Rs. 2,65,90,000/- between March and April 2025

Investigation revealed the funds were transferred into several bank accounts, including one held in the name of "Shivank Infinity IT Solutions," associated with the applicant, Priyank Jitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt

The applicant was arrested on June 10, 2025, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

His first bail application was rejected on merits on October 8, 2025

A subsequent Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn on February 16, 2026

The applicant moved this second bail application primarily on the ground of parity, noting that a co-accused, Nagendra Kumar, was granted bail by the Supreme Court on March 9, 2026, after his initial application was also rejected by the High Court

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity with a co-accused and the duration of his incarceration

The Court considered Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail, and Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, concerning cheating and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

The Court primarily relied on the Principle of Parity, which dictates that similarly situated accused individuals should be treated equally regarding bail unless distinguishable circumstances exist

It further considered the right to a speedy trial and the impact of prolonged pre-trial incarceration where charges have not yet been framed

The Court noted that while the applicant’s first bail application was rejected on merits, significant changes in circumstances had occurred.

Specifically, the co-accused, Nagendra Kumar—whose case the State conceded was identical to the applicant’s—was granted bail by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3611/2026

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since June 10, 2025 (nearly nine months), and that the trial progress was slow, as charges had not yet been framed

Despite the State's opposition regarding the gravity of the financial fraud and the lack of "new" circumstances, the Court found that the subsequent granting of bail to a similarly situated co-accused by a higher court constituted a valid ground for reconsideration

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: (i) non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence during trial stages under threat of proceedings under Section 269 or 209 of the BNS; and (iii) personal appearance during specific trial milestones such as the framing of charges