Parity in bail is unavailable where the applicant’s role is clearly distinguishable from the co-accused.

On June 27, 2025, the applicant, Aman Patel, allegedly entered a residence in Sarkanda and launched a violent assault on Urmila Shrivastava with a sharp iron chopper

When two other women, Rani and Sunita, intervened, they were also severely injured

A weapon resembling a sword was recovered based on the applicant's memorandum statement, and victims' statements implicated him as the primary assailant

The applicant’s first bail application was rejected on merits on October 29, 2025

The applicant filed this second bail application citing prolonged incarceration since June 28, 2025, the grant of bail to co-accused Amit Kumar, and trial delays caused by the co-accused's non-appearance

1. Whether a substantial change in circumstances existed to warrant the grant of a second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused who was previously enlarged on bail

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The court adhered to the principle that parity in bail is only applicable when the roles of the accused are similar and that second bail applications require a significant change in material facts

The court observed that the applicant is the "principal perpetrator" of a "brutal and unprovoked assault," distinguishing his role from that of the co-accused

It noted that the victims' statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS specifically identified the applicant as the main assailant who inflicted life-threatening injuries

Regarding the claim of parity, the court held it was inapplicable because co-accused Amit Kumar was granted bail specifically because no overt act of assault was attributed to him, whereas the applicant was the "main assailant"

Furthermore, the court found that while there was a delay in trial due to the co-accused's absence, the gravity and seriousness of the applicant's specific role outweighed the procedural delay and the period of incarceration

The court held that no case for bail was made out given the gravity of the offense and the specific role attributed to the applicant

However, it directed the trial court to take appropriate steps to secure the presence of the absconding co-accused and proceed with the framing of charges against the applicant expeditiously