Parity and substantial period of incarceration justify grant of second bail application under BNSS.

The four applicants filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, after their first application (MCRC No. 9290/2025) was rejected on merits on 11.12.2025.

The applicants were arrested on 26.08.2025 in connection with Crime No. 360/2025 for allegedly acting as "mule account" holders involved in illegal transactions.

The investigation was initiated following directions from the Department of Home, Government of India, regarding illegal financial activities, leading to the identification of 21 account holders and the filing of a charge-sheet against 14 individuals.

The applicants sought bail primarily on the grounds of prolonged incarceration (nearly seven months) and the principle of parity, as a co-accused, Aryan Namdeo, had been granted bail on 28.02.2026.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under the principle of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail in similar circumstances.

2. Whether the period of incarceration undergone by the applicants (nearly seven months) constitutes a sufficient ground for reconsidering the bail plea after a previous rejection on merits.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant regular bail.

It considered the substantive offences defined under Sections 317(2), 317(4), and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Furthermore, the Court relied on the established judicial principle of parity, which mandates that if a similarly situated co-accused has been granted relief, the same should be extended to others unless specific distinguishing factors exist.

The Court evaluated the second bail application by weighing the previous rejection against the subsequent change in circumstances.

It noted that the applicants had been in custody since August 2025, amounting to a substantial period of six to seven months.

Crucially, the Court observed that the State counsel could not dispute that the case of the present applicants was identical to that of co-accused Aryan Namdeo, who was recently granted bail in MCRC No. 1532/2026.

By connecting the facts—specifically the filing of the charge-sheet and the identical nature of involvement—the Court determined that the detention was no longer necessary for investigation and that denying bail would violate the principle of parity.

The Court allowed the second bail application and directed the release of the applicants on personal bonds with two sureties each, subject to several conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence during trial proceedings, and strict compliance with Section 269 and Section 209 of the BNS.