Prolonged incarceration and parity with co-accused justify grant of bail despite gravity of alleged offence.

The applicant, Mannu @ Sameer, filed a third application for regular bail in connection with Crime No. 72/2023 involving offences under Sections 454, 307, 294, 34, 324, and 120-B of the IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleges that co-accused Sharukh assaulted the victim with a knife on the head, while the applicant assaulted the victim on his hand and leg.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since February 15, 2023.

Two previous bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn in 2024 and 2025.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of long incarceration (over three years), delayed trial (only 10 out of 27 witnesses examined), and parity with the main accused, Sharukh, who was granted bail by the Supreme Court on February 20, 2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of prolonged incarceration and the principle of parity with a co-accused.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) governing the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

It considered the gravity of offences under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 307, 454, etc.) and the Arms Act.

The Court emphasized the procedural requirement of Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the CrPC) regarding the continuous examination of witnesses to prevent trial delays.

Furthermore, the Court relied on the principle of parity in bail, observing that the main accused had already been released by a superior court.

The Court observed that the applicant has been incarcerated for over three years while the trial remains protracted, with 17 prosecution witnesses still to be examined.

The Court noted that the "main accused," Sharukh—who allegedly caused the head injury—had been granted bail by the Supreme Court; thus, the applicant, whose role was similar or less severe (injuries to limbs), deserved similar consideration under the principle of parity.

Evaluating the risk of flight or witness tampering, the Court found that the applicant’s socio-economic status as a 23-year-old labourer and the absence of a "substantial criminal past" mitigated such concerns.

The Court concluded that continued incarceration was unnecessary as the veracity of the allegations would only be determined at the conclusion of the trial.

The holding is contingent upon five conditions: (1) regular appearance at hearings; (2) abstaining from similar offences; (3) no inducement or threats to witnesses; (4) no tampering with evidence; and (5) compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding witness examination.

The Court clarified that any breach of these conditions would allow the Trial Court to consider cancellation of bail.