Regular bail granted on ground of parity to accused facing embezzlement charges under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The applicant, an employee of a liquor shop, was implicated in Crime No. 130/2025 following an inspection on August 18, 2025, which revealed missing liquor stock valued at ₹47,45,189/-

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused employees and staff from CMS, embezzled the liquor stock and corresponding revenue

The applicant was arrested on August 23, 2025, and subsequently sought regular bail before the High Court

It was noted that a co-accused, Juber Siddiki, had previously been granted bail by the same Court in MCRC No. 73 of 2026

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the grounds of parity with a co-accused and the duration of his incarceration

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

The Court relied on the legal principle of parity, which dictates that if a co-accused with an identical role and similar allegations has been granted bail, the same relief should be extended to the applicant

The Court considered the procedural implications of Section 269 (failure to appear), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 (failure to appear in court) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS regarding the breach of bail conditions

The Court examined the applicant's involvement in light of the fact that he had been in custody since August 23, 2025, and possessed no prior criminal antecedents

Although the State argued that the applicant was involved in a significant embezzlement of nearly ₹47.45 lakhs, they conceded that his case was identical to that of the co-accused, Juber Siddiki, who was granted bail on March 2, 2025

The Court reasoned that since the co-accused had already been released and the trial was expected to be protracted, there was no justification for continued detention

Consequently, the Court found the ground of parity sufficient to override the State's objections regarding the nature of the offence

The holding clarified that parity is a valid ground for bail when the roles of the accused are indistinguishable and the trial's conclusion is not imminent

The Court imposed strict conditions, including a mandate that the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony and must remain present for all critical trial stages, failing which the trial court may initiate proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS/BNSS