Regular bail was granted on parity with a similarly situated co-accused.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 02/2026 registered at Police Station Range Cyber, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 318(4), 308(6), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that unknown persons impersonating police, ED and RBI officials threatened the complainant’s mother with arrest in a fabricated terrorism and money-laundering case and induced her to transfer ₹1,04,80,000 between 21 and 24 April 2026; a further demand of ₹50,00,000 was allegedly made thereafter.

During investigation, the applicant and other accused persons were arrested.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that he had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 24 May 2026, and was similarly situated to co-accused Vishal Singh, who had been granted bail, while co-accused Rupendra Singh’s bail application had been rejected.

The charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents and the expected duration of the trial.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Vishal Singh, who had already been granted bail in the same case.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

It applied the principle of parity, under which an accused similarly situated to a co-accused who has been granted bail may ordinarily receive similar relief, unless distinguishing circumstances exist.

The Court also considered the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, the period already spent in custody, and the likelihood that the trial would take time as relevant bail considerations.

The charged offences were those under Sections 318(4), 308(6), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The Court found that the applicant’s case was similar to that of co-accused Vishal Singh, who had been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench, whereas the State could not dispute the asserted similarity.

Since the charge-sheet had already been filed, further custodial investigation was not shown to be necessary.

The applicant had no criminal antecedents in Maharashtra or Chhattisgarh, had remained in custody since 24 May 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On these cumulative considerations, and particularly on the ground of parity, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, notwithstanding that bail had been refused to another co-accused, Rupendra Singh, in the same order.

The applicant, Abdul Qayum Mansuri, was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, 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.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.