Parity is unavailable where the applicant is the principal assailant attributed a specific stabbing role.

The applicant, aged about 19 years, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 29/2026 registered at Police Station Gatapar for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109, 324(5), 3(5), 191(2), 193(3), 190 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that during a wedding procession on 22 April 2026, the applicant and other persons returned after an initial altercation, threatened Raja Verma and stabbed him in the abdomen with a steel knife. The applicant allegedly also assaulted complainant Kamlesh Verma and obstructed and damaged the vehicle carrying the injured Raja Verma, causing further injuries.

Raja Verma required treatment at AIIMS, Raipur, from 23 April to 7 May 2026. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant relied on the absence of his name in the FIR, alleged lack of grievous injury, non-recovery of the weapon, his age, absence of criminal antecedents, compromise affidavits, and bail granted to co-accused Punam Sinha and Gulshan Sinha.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the applicant was the principal assailant who had stabbed the injured victim in the abdomen.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the serious allegations, the specific allegation of stabbing the injured victim, and the material collected during investigation.

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

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail. In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the specific role attributed to the accused, the manner of commission of the alleged offence, the injuries suffered by the victim, and the material available in the case diary.

The principle of parity was applied subject to a comparison of the individual roles of the accused; parity is not available where the applicant stands on a materially different footing from the co-accused granted bail.

The relevant offences were those alleged under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109, 324(5), 3(5), 191(2), 193(3), 190 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court found that the applicant was alleged to be the principal assailant who threatened the injured person and stabbed him in the abdomen with a steel knife, resulting in profuse bleeding, loss of consciousness, serious injuries and prolonged treatment at AIIMS.

The additional allegations that he assaulted the complainant and damaged the vehicle transporting the injured further demonstrated the seriousness of his alleged conduct.

Although the co-accused had been granted bail, their bail order was based on the fact that the principal allegation was directed against the present applicant. Consequently, the applicant could not claim parity because his alleged role was materially more serious and direct.

The filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s young age, lack of antecedents, and the alleged compromise did not outweigh the gravity of the accusations and the specific attribution of the stabbing.

It rejected the bail application in Crime No. 29/2026, holding that the applicant was the alleged main assailant and stood on a materially different footing from the co-accused who had been granted bail.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.