Regular bail granted on parity following victim restitution and compromise with the complainant.

The applicant, Sukhbeer Singh, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Crime No. 110/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was lured via Telegram into a "work from home" scheme involving product reviews and was induced to deposit a total of ₹3,13,444 into various accounts linked to the accused persons.

The applicant has been in custody since 22.03.2025.

His first bail application (MCRC No. 5566 of 2025) was rejected on merits on 31.07.2025.

The applicant sought bail in this second application primarily on the ground of parity, as co-accused Narendra Kumar and Upendra Kumar Singh were granted bail after an amicable compromise was reached and the entire disputed amount was refunded to the complainant.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who were released following a compromise and refund of the defrauded amount.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is justified given the duration of custody and the status of the trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

Principle of Parity, which dictates that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail.

Section 269 (non-appearance) and Section 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding) and Section 351 (evidence in presence of accused) of the BNSS.

The Court observed that although the applicant’s initial bail application was rejected on merits, a material change in circumstances had occurred, specifically that two co-accused, whose cases were identical to the applicant’s, were granted bail in January and February 2026 due to a compromise and the total refund of the money.

The State counsel could not dispute that the applicant's role and circumstances were identical to those of the co-accused who were already released.

The Court noted the applicant had been in jail for over a year (since March 2025) and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Consequently, the Court found it just to extend the benefit of parity to the applicant.

The bail was made subject to several conditions, including an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence on all trial dates, and strict compliance with procedures under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS and Sections 84 and 351 of the BNSS in case of default.