Parity justified anticipatory bail where applicants were implicated only through co-accused statements.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 to 6, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 97/2026, registered for alleged offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution alleged that, during a police patrol on 12 June 2026, two persons were arrested near Itkal Cross after a group was reportedly seen carrying guns; the petitioners allegedly fled, and their identities were disclosed by the arrested persons.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences, the need for custodial interrogation, and risks of absconding or interference with the investigation.

The petitioners relied on the absence of material apart from the co-accused’s statements and the fact that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been granted regular bail.

The Court considered Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, under which it was asked to grant anticipatory bail, and the alleged offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Its reasoning relied on the insufficiency of the material against the petitioners, the absence of disclosed antecedents, parity with co-accused who had obtained bail, and the ability to address investigative concerns through conditions.

The judgment’s discussion of punishment is internally inconsistent: it states both that the offence is not punishable with imprisonment for life and that the maximum punishment may extend to life imprisonment.

The Court noted that the petitioners were implicated on the basis of statements made by accused Nos. 1 and 2, and found no other material from the police showing their involvement or that they had been armed.

It also considered the absence of antecedents and the grant of regular bail to accused Nos. 1 and 2 as supporting parity.

Although the State raised concerns about the investigation and possible absconding or witness-tampering, the Court held those concerns could be addressed through conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with witnesses.

Each petitioner was required to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, cooperate with the investigation, attend court as directed, and refrain from tampering with witnesses or committing further offences.

The Investigating Officer may seek the petitioners’ custody with prior permission of the Magistrate or trial court if custodial interrogation is required.