Regular bail granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused had already been enlarged.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail in Crime No. 42/2026 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, for offences under Sections 308(5), 296, 111, 351(3), 127(8), 115(2), 117(2), 61, 140(1) and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that, between 16 and 19 February 2026, the applicant and co-accused formed an unlawful assembly, abducted or confined the complainants, Jeevan Yadav and Rakesh Sharma, demanded or attempted to obtain money, assaulted them, used deadly weapons, issued threats and abused them in obscene and derogatory language.

The applicant was arrested on 20 February 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

The applicant denied involvement and contended that he was implicated merely because he was present during a dispute concerning an alleged loan of ₹2,00,000.

He also relied on the absence of any incriminating seizure from him, the simple nature of the complainants’ injuries, the non-implication of Jitendra Yadav, and the fact that six co-accused had already been granted bail, including two by the High Court.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant was specifically named and had actively participated in the alleged offences, but conceded that the case of the applicant was identical to that of the co-accused who had been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the simple nature of the injuries and the overall circumstances of the case?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with similarly placed co-accused who had already been granted bail?

3. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the gravity of the alleged offences justified denial of bail despite the circumstances favouring release?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

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

In exercising that discretion, it considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the period of incarceration, the filing of the charge-sheet, the character of the evidence as reflected at the bail stage, the nature of the injuries, and the possibility of prolonged trial.

The alleged offences under the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were considered in assessing the seriousness of the accusations, but the Court did not treat the pendency of those charges as independently determinative against bail.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the prosecution allegations and the State’s contention that the applicant was specifically named and had participated in the incident.

However, it found that the applicant had remained in custody since 20 February 2026, the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, thereby reducing the justification for continued custodial detention.

The complainants had suffered simple injuries, and the applicant’s two previous criminal cases under the IPC and Arms Act had already been disposed of.

Most significantly, six co-accused had been released on bail, and the State was unable to dispute that the applicant’s case was identical to theirs.

Balancing the gravity of the allegations against these mitigating circumstances, the Court held that the applicant had established a case for bail on the ground of parity.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on fixed dates, to comply with proceedings in the event of misuse of bail or non-appearance pursuant to 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.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.