Regular bail granted on parity where a similarly placed co-accused had already secured bail.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 446/2025 registered at City Kotwali Police Station, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution case arose from information received through the Cyber Police Coordination Portal indicating that ₹5,22,798 had been deposited into six bank accounts between 1 June 2024 and 14 August 2025. Co-accused Shivaji Chandra and Jitesh Kumar Chandra allegedly stated that a SIM card registered in the applicant’s name had been used in the cyber-fraud activities, pursuant to which the applicant was arrested.

The applicant claimed false implication on the basis of co-accused statements, absence of any recovery from him, lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and prolonged incarceration since 25 June 2026. He also relied on the Supreme Court’s grant of bail to co-accused Shivaji Chandra in SLP (Crl.) No. 865/2026, contending that his case stood on identical footing.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute the grant of bail to the co-accused or the applicant’s parity with him.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the materials collected against him and the nature of the alleged offences.

2. Whether bail should be granted on the ground of parity with co-accused Shivaji Chandra, who had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

3. Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and anticipated delay in trial justified release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the allegations under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court applied the principle of parity, under which an accused similarly situated to a co-accused who has been granted bail may ordinarily receive similar treatment, unless distinguishing circumstances exist.

It also considered established bail factors, including the nature and gravity of the offence, absence of criminal antecedents, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, period of incarceration, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial.

The Court relied particularly on the Supreme Court’s order granting bail to co-accused Shivaji Chandra in SLP (Crl.) No. 865/2026 dated 2 April 2026.

The Court found that the applicant’s case was substantially identical to that of co-accused Shivaji Chandra, who had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

The State did not dispute this parity.

In addition, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet had been filed, he had remained in custody since 25 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these circumstances against the nature and gravity of the allegations, the Court held that continued detention was not justified at that stage.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case and granted bail on the ground of parity.

Bail was granted subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings in the event of proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order was directed to be communicated to the trial court for compliance.