Regular bail granted on grounds of parity and completion of investigation under the BNSS.

On 23.12.2025, the complainant and several others were traveling to village Trishuli for a ceremony when the applicants allegedly chased their vehicle, assaulted the driver, and threatened the occupants

It was further alleged that the applicants snatched a gold chain, attempted to outrage a woman's modesty, and subsequently assaulted additional individuals who arrived at the scene using lathis and caste-based slurs

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 81/2025 for offenses under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The applicants argued the incident was a mutual road dispute for which they had lodged a cross-complaint, and they emphasized that the charge-sheet had already been filed

Applicants Nos. 1 and 3 had been in custody since 24.12.2025, and Applicant No. 2 since 26.12.2025

Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on the principle of parity and the stage of the investigation

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail

The Court relied on the legal principle of parity, which dictates that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding bail, noting that co-accused Krishna Yadav was granted bail in MCRC No. 1187/2026

the Court considered the offenses defined under Sections 115(2) (voluntary hurt), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 296 (obscenity), 304(2) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 324(5) (mischief), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 75 (sexual harassment/modesty) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the procedural progress of the case.

It observed that the investigation was complete as the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court

The Court highlighted that the co-accused, Krishna Yadav, had already been enlarged on bail, and thus the applicants were entitled to similar relief on the ground of parity

The Court further noted that the applicants had been in judicial custody for approximately three months and that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take significant time

Regarding criminal history, the Court noted that Applicant No. 3 had no antecedents, while Applicants Nos. 1 and 2 had only one prior record each, which did not outweigh the grounds for bail

The holding was contingent upon the applicants furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each

The Court imposed several mandatory conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) mandatory attendance on all trial dates under penalty of Section 269 of the BNS; and (iii) personal appearance during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

Failure to comply would be treated as an abuse of the liberty of bail