Parity warrants anticipatory bail where implication rests solely on a co-accused's memorandum statement.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 170/2025 involving alleged offenses under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 318(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the primary accused, Ramnarayan Sahu, defrauded the complainant and his associate of over ₹2.5 crores under the pretext of doubling investments in the share market.

The applicant was implicated solely based on the memorandum statement of a co-accused.

The applicant contended that he was not a perpetrator but a victim/investor who had paid ₹1,58,45,000 to the main accused and was falsely implicated after demanding the return of his funds.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS based on the principle of parity and lack of direct evidence.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail.

It considered the substantive offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 316(5) (Criminal breach of trust), 318 (Cheating), and 3(5) (Common intention).

The Court relied on the judicial principle of parity, which dictates that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail.

The Court evaluated the applicant's role and found no direct allegations leveled by the complainant; rather, the implication rested on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which the applicant claimed was retaliatory.

The Court noted that the investigation against the principal accused was already complete and a charge-sheet had been filed, rendering custodial interrogation of the applicant unnecessary.

Most significantly, the Court observed that a similarly situated co-accused, Tulsinand Sahu, had been granted bail by the same High Court in MCRCA No. 415 of 2025.

Applying the principle of parity and noting the absence of concrete evidence linking the applicant to the active commission of fraud, the Court determined that the applicant was entitled to protection from arrest.

The holding directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond and providing one local surety.

The relief was made subject to conditions, including: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) cooperation with the trial; (c) regular appearance before the trial court; (d) submission of verified Aadhaar and photographic identification; and (e) abstaining from future similar offenses.