Regular bail granted to retired official on grounds of parity and lack of specific allegations of forgery.

The applicant, a 68-year-old retired Revenue Inspector, was part of a demarcation team constituted following a complaint by a landowner regarding property boundaries

A subsequent inquiry by a second team alleged that the first team's report was manipulated to benefit encroachers

The applicant was accused of signing a forged panchnama orchestrated by co-accused J.P. Singh (In-charge of the team)

Consequently, Crime No. 241/2018 was registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC

Although the FIR was lodged in 2018, the applicant was arrested only on February 5, 2026, after the charge-sheet was filed

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering his role, the principle of parity, and the stage of the trial

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the clinical exercise of judicial discretion in granting regular bail

The Court considered Sections 420 (Cheating), 467, 468, 471 (Forgery), and 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Furthermore, it relied on the doctrine of parity in bail jurisprudence, as the co-accused with primary allegations of manipulation had already been enlarged on bail

The Court observed that while the allegations involved serious charges of forgery and cheating, the applicant was not specifically named in the FIR and possessed no prior criminal record

The Court noted that the primary allegations of interpolation were directed at co-accused J.P. Singh, who had already been granted bail; thus, the applicant’s involvement was limited to his official capacity as a member of the demarcation team

Significantly, the Court highlighted the procedural delay, noting that the FIR dated back to 2018 while the arrest occurred in 2026, subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet

Since custodial interrogation was no longer required and the trial was likely to be protracted, the Court found no justification for continued detention

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including mandatory appearance at trial and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments

The holding establishes that in cases of alleged official misconduct where the charge-sheet is filed and parity exists with a released co-accused, continued incarceration is unwarranted