Parity justified bail despite criminal antecedents where the co-accused had been granted bail and trial faced delay.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 347/2026 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that, owing to prior enmity arising from the applicant’s love marriage with the complainant’s elder sister, the applicant and co-accused Pakku @ Vivek Yadav abused, threatened and assaulted the complainant and his friend near a chaat stall on 10 May 2026. The alleged assault involved a sharp object, a chair, fists and kicks, causing injuries to both alleged victims.

The applicant asserted false implication, relied on the fact that he had been in custody since 13 May 2026, and submitted that the co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court in MCRC No. 7240 of 2026 on 7 August 2026. He also contended that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail, particularly referring to the applicant’s 14 criminal antecedents, nine of which were pending, but did not dispute that the co-accused had been granted bail and that the applicant’s case was identical.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the alleged offences, his criminal antecedents and the period of custody.

2. Whether bail should be granted to the applicant on the ground of parity with the co-accused who had already been granted bail in the same case.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It applied the principle of parity, under which an accused whose role and circumstances are materially identical to those of a co-accused already released on bail may ordinarily receive similar relief, subject to the facts of the individual case.

The Court also considered relevant bail factors, including the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, and the absence of any disputed distinction between the applicant and the bailed co-accused.

Bail was made subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s attendance and prevent misuse of liberty.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant had 14 criminal antecedents, with nine cases pending, which operated against the grant of bail.

However, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the State could not identify any material distinction between the applicant’s case and that of the co-accused.

Considering the applicant’s custody since 13 May 2026 and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude, the Court held that parity justified release on bail notwithstanding the antecedents.

The Court further protected the integrity of the trial by imposing conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages, and consequences for absence or misuse of bail.

Priyanshu Baksel was directed to be released in Crime No. 347/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the conditions specified in paragraph 7, including attendance before the trial court, non-obstruction of evidence, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and consequences for misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.