Regular bail was granted on parity where no distinguishing role was shown.

The petitioner filed his first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 261 dated 21 July 2025, registered at Police Station Dabua, District Faridabad, under Sections 103(1), 115, 190, 191(2), 351(2) and subsequently Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 302, 321, 149, 147, 506 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code

During the intervening night of 20/21 July 2025, the complainant was informed of a quarrel involving his brother Deepak. After searching for him, the complainant allegedly reached the spot where Mahender, his family members and others were present, and was allegedly beaten. The police subsequently informed him that Deepak had died and that his body was lying at B.K.H. Hospital

The petitioner and other accused were arrested, and the prosecution primarily sought to connect him with the occurrence through CCTV footage

The petitioner contended that there was no eyewitness account, that the case rested on circumstantial evidence, and that the CCTV analysis showed him only once at approximately 1:22 a.m., without establishing continued or active participation

He had remained in custody since 1 December 2025; investigation was complete, no further recovery was required, and similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail

The State opposed bail on the basis of the petitioner’s presence in the CCTV footage but could not identify any material distinction between his role and that of the co-accused released on bail

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in view of the completed investigation, the circumstantial nature of the prosecution case, and his period of custody

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the principle of parity with similarly placed co-accused who had already been granted bail

3. Whether the petitioner’s alleged presence in the CCTV footage was sufficient, at the bail stage, to justify continued incarceration for the alleged offences

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the completion of investigation, the petitioner’s period of custody, the absence of any further custodial-recovery requirement, the nature of the evidence, and the likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses

The Court also applied the principle of parity, under which an accused whose role is not materially distinguishable from that of a co-accused already granted bail may ordinarily claim similar consideration

The Court expressly refrained from recording any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case

The Court found that the prosecution case against the petitioner was principally based on CCTV footage and that there was no eyewitness account

The footage analysis allegedly showed the petitioner at the place of occurrence at approximately 1:22 a.m., but did not, on the material placed before the Court, establish his continued or active participation throughout the occurrence

Since the investigation had been completed, nothing incriminating remained to be recovered from him, and he had been in custody since 1 December 2025, further incarceration was not considered necessary

Significantly, the State could not demonstrate any material distinction between the petitioner’s alleged role and that of the co-accused who had already been granted bail, making the principle of parity applicable

The Court also noted the petitioner’s stated clean antecedents and the absence of material suggesting that he would abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses if released

These factors collectively justified bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.

He was directed not to induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case; to furnish and update his complete address; and not to leave India without prior permission of the trial Court

Any pending applications were also disposed of