Regular Bail Granted on Grounds of Parity and Charge-Sheet Completion Despite Extensive Criminal Antecedents.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on October 20, 2025.

According to the prosecution, the applicant and several associates allegedly assaulted the complainant and his cousin on October 21, 2025, following a prior dispute. The allegations include using weapons to cause head injuries, damaging parked vehicles (Innova, Hyundai i20, and Honda Amaze), and forcibly entering the complainant’s residence.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who were previously granted bail and because the charge-sheet had already been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite having 27 previous criminal antecedents.

2. Whether the principle of parity applies given the release of co-accused Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Om Tiwari, and Sudhanshu Rai.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The case involved offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 296(b) (obscene acts/songs), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 331(6) (house-trespass), and 191(1) (rioting).

The court also applied the doctrine of parity in bail jurisprudence and considered the procedural status of the trial (filing of charge-sheet) as a factor in granting liberty.

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations and the applicant's extensive criminal history (27 prior cases) against the procedural facts of the current case. It noted that the applicant had provided an explanation for the 21 decided cases in his application.

The court placed significant weight on the fact that three co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the same court in February 2026. Furthermore, because the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in judicial custody since October 2025, the court determined that further incarceration was not necessary for the investigation.

To mitigate risks associated with his "habitual offender" status alleged by the State, the court imposed "heavy sureties" and strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with "two heavy sureties". The holding is subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must be present for all key trial stages (charge framing, Section 351 BNSS statements), and any violation may lead to proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS.