Parity with co-accused warrants grant of bail in second application despite previous rejection on merits.

The applicants, Ramanuj Yadav and Bhagwandas Yadav, moved their second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Crime No. 19/2025.

The first bail application was rejected on merits on August 6, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that on February 22, 2025, the applicants and co-accused chased the complainant and her husband on a motorcycle, assaulted them with sticks, and allegedly threw the complainant's child, causing head injuries.

The applicants have been in custody since April 30, 2025.

They sought bail primarily on the ground of parity, noting that the second bail application of co-accused persons had already been allowed by the court on March 2, 2026.

Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail on the ground of parity with co-accused and the duration of their incarceration.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Judicial principle of parity, which mandates similar treatment for similarly situated accused persons in bail matters.

Procedural safeguards and conditions for the continued liberty of the applicants were directed under Sections 269 (non-appearance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), and 209 (failure to appear in court) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of statements.

The court noted that while the applicants' first bail application was rejected on merits, the circumstances had evolved as co-accused persons in the same crime had subsequently been granted bail in their second application.

The State counsel conceded that the case of the current applicants was identical to that of the released co-accused.

The court observed that the applicants had been in jail for approximately eleven months and that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take significant time.

By applying the rule of parity and considering the length of pre-trial detention, the court determined that continued custody was not warranted, provided the applicants adhered to strict conditions to ensure their presence during trial proceedings.

The High Court allowed the application and directed the release of both applicants on regular bail... conditioned upon the furnishing of personal bonds and two sureties each, with specific mandates that the applicants must not seek adjournments during evidence, must remain present at all critical trial stages (framing of charges and recording of statements), and must comply with all procedural requirements of the BNS and BNSS.