Parity is unavailable where bailed co-accused were not named in the FIR.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 281/2026, registered for an offence under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant assaulted Avesh Khan with a knife, causing an injury to his chest; the medical records described the injury as grievous.

The applicant relied on a scuffle and counter-FIRs, his two disposed-of criminal antecedents, the grant of bail to two co-accused, completion of the charge-sheet, and the likely delay in trial.

The order records the alleged incident as occurring on 19 June 2026, but also states that the applicant had been in custody since 1 April 2026 and that the victim was hospitalized from 31 March to 7 April 2026; these dates are internally inconsistent.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, having regard to the specific allegation of a knife assault causing a grievous chest injury and the other circumstances presented.

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

The application was made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offence was under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied the principle that, at the bail stage, its role is confined to assessing whether a prima facie case exists; it does not determine the truth of the allegations against the defence at that stage.

On parity, the Court considered whether the co-accused were similarly situated in light of the reasons for their bail.

The Court found a prima facie case based on the FIR’s specific allegation that the applicant used a knife and the medical records describing a grievous incised chest injury.

It declined to assess the applicant’s claim of false implication arising from prior animosity against the prosecution case at the bail stage.

Parity did not assist the applicant because the co-accused had not been named in the FIR and had been implicated only on the basis of the applicant’s statement, unlike the applicant, against whom the FIR made a specific allegation.

Given the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the Court declined bail.