Parity warrants bail for a lesser-role accused when more culpable co-accused have already been released.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in FIR No. 88/2025, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, for offences under Sections 311/317(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution alleged that, on 14 February 2025, two masked persons robbed a travel-agency shop at gunpoint and fled in a rented vehicle allegedly driven by the applicant.

The two alleged robbers, Dipanshu and Gaurav Dhania, were arrested on 15 February 2025, and firearms, ammunition, cash and other articles were recovered from them.

The applicant was subsequently arrested in connection with the FIR, and ₹2,00,000 along with foreign currency allegedly forming part of the looted property was recovered at his instance from the house of the sister of his girlfriend, now wife.

A chargesheet had been filed, but the case was still at the stage of arguments on charge.

The applicant had been in custody since February 2025, with the Nominal Roll recording custody of approximately one year and six months as of 22 September 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS after completion of investigation and filing of the chargesheet, particularly when the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the two co-accused who had already been released on bail, despite the applicant’s alleged criminal antecedents and recovery of part of the looted property at his instance?

Whether the applicant’s alleged role as the driver and facilitator, rather than the principal perpetrator who entered the shop and used firearms, justified his release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

It considered the established bail principles of assessment of the accused’s prima facie role, the length of custody, the stage and likely duration of trial, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the principle of parity with similarly situated co-accused.

The offences alleged arose under Sections 311/317(2)/3(5) BNS and Sections 25/27 Arms Act.

No judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment; the decision was based on the statutory bail jurisdiction, comparative roles of the accused, prolonged custody, and the anticipated delay in trial.

The Court found that the two co-accused who had actually entered the shop and committed the robbery had already been granted bail.

In comparison, the applicant’s alleged role was supporting in nature: he had allegedly driven the vehicle used for escape, while the firearm use and recoveries of weapons were attributed to the other accused.

Although the State alleged that the applicant was the prime conspirator and that looted property had been recovered at his instance, the Court treated the grant of bail to the co-accused with a more direct role as a relevant parity consideration.

The Court also noted that the chargesheet had been filed, the applicant had undergone substantial custody, and the proceedings had not yet progressed beyond arguments on charge, making an early conclusion of trial unlikely.

These factors outweighed, for the purpose of bail, the State’s objections concerning antecedents, absconding, and possible witness influence, particularly as appropriate conditions could be imposed to secure the applicant’s presence and prevent interference with the trial.

The application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released in FIR No. 88/2025 on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount.

Bail was subject to conditions including appearance on every hearing date, disclosure of permanent and current addresses, maintenance of a working mobile number, weekly reporting to the jurisdictional police station, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and abstention from committing any offence during the period of release.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.