Parity with co-accused warrants grant of anticipatory bail notwithstanding the existence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 378/2025, involving alleged offenses under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), and 111 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecution alleged that the main accused, Ramnarayan Sahu, defrauded a complainant of ₹40,82,000 under the pretext of stock market investments

The applicant was implicated based on the memorandum statement of the main accused

The applicant contended that he was a victim who had invested ₹55,16,100 with the main accused and had no role in the fraud

The State opposed the bail, noting that the applicant had four criminal antecedents

However, it was established that a co-accused, Ranu Dhrw, had been granted anticipatory bail by the same court on February 12, 2026

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on the grounds of parity with a co-accused

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest

The judicial principle of parity, which suggests that where a co-accused in similar circumstances has been granted relief, the same may be extended to the applicant to ensure consistency in judicial exercise of discretion

The Court examined the applicant's claim of being an investor/victim rather than a perpetrator, noting that his implication rested largely on the statement of the main accused

While the State pointed to the applicant's four criminal antecedents, the Court focused on the procedural history of the case, specifically that the police had already filed a charge sheet against the main accused

The pivotal factor in the Court's reasoning was the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused Ranu Dhrw in MCRCA No. 228/2026

Since the State could not dispute the similarity of the applicant's position to that of the co-accused who was already released, the Court determined that the applicant was entitled to the same benefit on the ground of parity

The Court held that despite criminal antecedents, the principle of parity with the co-accused justified the grant of bail

The applicant was directed to be released, in the event of arrest, upon executing a personal bond with one surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition against committing similar future offenses