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

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 297/2026 registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 191(2), 191(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 6 April 2026, the applicant and other co-accused persons abused and assaulted the complainant’s family members using a lathi, axe and sickle, while also issuing threats to kill them. Four persons allegedly sustained injuries and were admitted to CIMS, Bilaspur.

The applicant had been in custody since 8 April 2026.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), principally on the ground of parity, as co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the High Court.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the offences alleged against him?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who had already been granted bail in the same case?

What conditions should govern the applicant’s release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The Court applied the principle of parity, under which an accused whose role and circumstances are materially identical to those of co-accused already granted bail may ordinarily receive similar treatment, absent distinguishing circumstances.

The Court also imposed conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, personal appearance at material stages of trial, and compliance with proceedings relating to absence or misuse of bail.

The Court noted that the co-accused had already been granted bail by orders dated 21 August 2026 and that the State did not dispute that the applicant’s case was identical to theirs.

Considering the applicant’s period of custody from 8 April 2026, the likelihood that the trial would take time, and the absence of any distinguishing circumstance warranting different treatment, the Court found the principle of parity applicable.

The application was therefore allowed, subject to safeguards intended to ensure the applicant’s presence and prevent misuse of the liberty of bail.

Arjun Baghel was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, refraining from unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and compliance with applicable proceedings in the event of absence or misuse of bail.