Parity cannot justify bail when the applicant’s prior merits rejection was undisclosed in the co-accused’s bail proceedings.

The prosecution alleged that, between 4 January 2024 and 2 March 2025, the applicant and co-accused used 41 SIM cards to facilitate cyber fraud and dishonestly obtained ₹18,52,654; a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.

The applicant, in judicial custody since 9 March 2026, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on the filing of the charge-sheet and parity with co-accused Ramkrishna Kushwaha, who had been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, pointing out that the applicant’s first bail application had been dismissed on merits and alleging that he procured and sold illegally activated SIM cards and received cyber-fraud proceeds through his UPI account.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, including on the ground of parity with a co-accused.

2. Whether the co-accused’s grant of bail justified parity where the applicant’s earlier bail application had been dismissed on merits and that dismissal had not been brought to the Court’s notice when the co-accused was granted bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to grant bail.

In considering bail, the Court assessed the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and the circumstances of the successive application.

The Court treated parity as insufficient where the applicant’s first bail application had already been dismissed on merits and that material circumstance had not been brought to the Court’s attention in the co-accused’s bail proceeding.

The alleged offences were under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) BNS and Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.

The Court noted that the applicant’s first bail application had been dismissed on merits on 6 July 2026, before the co-accused was granted bail on 29 July 2026.

Because the earlier dismissal had not been brought to the Court’s notice in the co-accused’s bail proceeding, the applicant could not rely on that order as a sufficient basis for parity.

Having also considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the Court declined to grant bail.