Regular bail is warranted on parity where similarly implicated co-accused have already been granted bail.

The applicant was arrested on 10 January 2025 in connection with Crime No. 333/2024 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, following a monetary dispute, the applicant and other accused persons took Hariom Singh from his residence on the night of 24 October 2024 to their workplace and assaulted him with a wooden club, hands and fists. The injured victim was left near his residence on the morning of 25 October 2024 and subsequently died in hospital at approximately 2:15 p.m.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that the allegations against him were general, the investigation was complete, and similarly placed co-accused Santosh Soni and Saksham Pandey had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had participated in the assault that caused the victim’s death.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite the serious allegations under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS?

2. Whether the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused, completion of investigation, the applicant’s period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified bail on the principle of parity?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

The Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the period of custody, the likelihood of the trial taking time, and the principle of parity with similarly situated co-accused.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, concerning the victim’s death, the related conduct alleged against the accused, and joint liability based on common intention.

The Court also relied on the fact that co-accused Santosh Soni and Saksham Pandey, against whom similar allegations were made, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

The Court acknowledged the serious allegation that the applicant, along with other accused persons, assaulted the deceased, but found that the investigation had been completed and that the applicant had remained in custody since 10 January 2025.

It further considered that two co-accused facing similar allegations had been granted bail by the Supreme Court, making parity a relevant consideration. Since the conclusion of the trial was likely to take time, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted at that stage and that the applicant could be released subject to strict conditions.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation and appearance, 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.