Parity with similarly situated co-accused justified bail despite pending criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 1137/2025 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg, for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and other representatives of Nisha Business Consultancy and Unique Investment induced the complainant to invest money by promising monthly returns of 20% on share-market investments. After the complainant invested ₹22,00,000 in total, the companies allegedly closed their offices and their representatives absconded, causing financial loss.

The FIR was registered on 22 September 2025, the applicant had been in custody since 5 January 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying principally on the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused persons.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in view of the allegations, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the pendency of trial.

Whether the principle of parity warranted grant of bail to the applicant when identically situated co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in cases involving non-bailable offences.

It considered the established bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material available against the accused, the period of detention, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of misuse of liberty.

The Court also applied the principle of parity, under which an accused similarly situated to co-accused already released on bail may ordinarily be granted similar relief, subject to an independent assessment of the applicant’s role and circumstances.

The relevant substantive offences were Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegation that the applicant had participated in inducing the complainant and other investors through promises of 20% monthly returns and had obtained their money before the company ceased operations.

Nevertheless, the applicant had remained in custody since 5 January 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

Although the applicant had two pending criminal antecedents from 2025, the Court found that this factor did not outweigh the circumstances supporting bail, particularly because identically situated co-accused had already been granted bail in four earlier orders.

On balancing the gravity of the allegations against the period of detention, completion of investigation, anticipated duration of trial, and parity with co-accused, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates, to comply with proceedings in the event of misuse of bail or non-appearance pursuant to proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.