### Regular bail may be granted on grounds of parity and lack of criminal antecedents.

The Applicant, Veeru Yadav, sought regular bail after being arrested on September 19, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 456/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of September 5/6, 2025, a group of individuals, including the Applicant, entered the complainant’s house and assaulted him and his aunt with sticks and iron rods following a neighborhood quarrel.

The Applicant was charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Sections 127(2) (wrongful confinement), 191(2) (rioting), and 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), among others.

The Applicant contended that no seizures were made from him, he had no criminal antecedents, and sought parity with co-accused Teju Yadav and Jaiki Chauhan, who had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on the grounds of parity and the stage of the investigation.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The Court relied on the legal principle of parity, which dictates that if similarly situated co-accused have been granted relief, the same should be extended to the applicant unless distinct circumstances exist.

The court considered the relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, under which the applicant was charged, and the procedural mandate that detention should not be unnecessarily prolonged after the filing of a charge-sheet.

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court.

Although the prosecution opposed bail, they could not dispute that the Applicant’s case was identical to those of the co-accused, Teju Yadav and Jaiki Chauhan, who were released via earlier orders in MCRC Nos. 1713/2026 and 670/2026.

The Court reasoned that since the Applicant had been in custody since September 19, 2025, had no previous criminal record, and the trial was expected to take considerable time, there were no grounds to deny him the same relief afforded to the co-accused.

The absence of any seized material from the Applicant further weakened the necessity for continued pretrial detention.

The Applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: emphasizing non-interference with evidence, mandatory presence during trial proceedings (specifically framing of charges and recording of statements), and compliance with Section 269 of the BNS regarding attendance.

The Court held that parity and the completion of the investigation justified the release of the Applicant.