### Regular Bail Granted on Grounds of Parity Despite Pending Criminal Antecedents

The applicant, Bhavesh Nishad, sought regular bail following his arrest on September 20, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 456/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of September 5, 2025, a group of individuals entered the complainant’s house and assaulted him with sticks and iron rods, causing injuries to the complainant and his aunt.

The applicant was charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including sections related to rioting, house-trespass, and causing hurt.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, noting that no seizures were made from him and that similarly situated co-accused persons, Teju Yadav and Jaiki Chauhan, had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the ground of parity with co-accused persons and the duration of his detention.

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

The court relied on the Principle of Parity, which dictates that if co-accused individuals with similar roles and allegations have been granted bail, the applicant should generally be treated similarly.

The court also considered the nature of the offence and the necessity of ensuring the accused's presence during trial as per the conditions under the BNS and BNSS.

The Court examined the nature and gravity of the offences alongside the applicant’s period of detention since September 2025.

While acknowledging that the applicant had three previous criminal antecedents, the Court observed that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Crucially, the Court noted that the case of the present applicant was identical to that of co-accused Teju Yadav and Jaiki Chauhan, who were granted bail in January and February 2026.

Reasoning that the trial would take considerable time to conclude and that parity was applicable, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted, provided strict conditions were imposed to prevent the abuse of liberty.

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to release on the ground of parity.

The release was conditioned upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and strict adherence to procedural requirements, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments and mandatory appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.