Regular bail may be granted on parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The applicant, a daily-wage Computer Operator at the District Cooperative Central Bank, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 188/2026, registered for offences under Sections 3(5), 316(5), 318 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that he and others fraudulently obtained signatures of 127 farmers and secured loans in their names, causing an alleged loss of ₹1,92,82,096.

The applicant contended that he had no authority to sanction or disburse loans, that the case rested on documentary evidence, and that he had no criminal antecedents. The charge-sheet had been filed, and he had been in custody since 19 June 2026.

He sought bail, including on parity with co-accused who had been granted anticipatory or interim bail.

The State opposed the application, relying on the alleged scale of the fraud and the farmers’ statements.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the nature of the allegations, his role, the stage of the case and his period in custody.

Whether the bail granted to co-accused warranted release of the applicant on the ground of parity.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the application for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 3(5), 316(5), 318 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s attributed role, the documentary character of the evidence, criminal antecedents, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, time in custody, and parity with co-accused.

The Court considered the applicant’s role as a daily-wage Computer Operator alongside the fact that the alleged transactions were primarily supported by documentary evidence and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

It also took account of his lack of criminal antecedents and custody since 19 June 2026.

The Court further found that co-accused in the same case had received anticipatory or interim bail and that the allegations against the applicant were similar, making parity a relevant consideration in favour of release.

The Court directed that the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was subject to conditions that he not intimidate or induce persons acquainted with the case, not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until disposal of the trial.