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

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 23/2026 registered at Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(1), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 6 March 2026, an altercation arose between the complainant and the accused persons concerning the parking of a vehicle. The accused allegedly attempted to assault the complainant with a knife, thereafter pulled him out of his vehicle and assaulted him with fists and hands.

Section 109(1) BNS was subsequently added, and the charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation.

The applicant, who had been in custody since 22 June 2026, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), relying, inter alia, on the grant of bail to co-accused Mahesh Gupta and Budhdev Gupta by a co-ordinate Bench in MCRC No. 6516 of 2026.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute the grant of bail to the co-accused.

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody and the likely duration of the trial?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the principle of parity, in view of the bail granted to co-accused Mahesh Gupta and Budhdev Gupta?

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.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the materials collected during investigation, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial and the principle of parity with similarly placed co-accused.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court considered the allegations and the materials available on record without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

It found relevant that the applicant had been in custody since 22 June 2026, the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

The Court further attached significance to the fact that the co-accused, Mahesh Gupta and Budhdev Gupta, had already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench, and that the State did not dispute this circumstance.

Balancing these factors under Section 483 BNSS, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to regular bail, subject to conditions intended to secure his presence and prevent misuse of the liberty granted.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The order also permitted the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law in the event of absence, misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.

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