Second bail granted on grounds of parity despite prior rejection on merits and high-value fraud allegations.

The applicant, an individual with primary education (up to Class VIII), allegedly opened a bank account at the instance of co-accused Kunal Patnayak for a fee of Rs. 5,000/-

The prosecution alleged that this account was subsequently used as a "mule account" for fraudulent transactions totaling Rs. 1,12,58,419.70/-

The applicant was arrested on 02.06.2025 in connection with Crime No. 86/2025 for offenses under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

While the first bail application was rejected on merits on 11.08.2025, the applicant moved this second application seeking bail primarily on the ground of parity, noting that other co-accused (Suraj Kumar and Nitish Kumar) had been granted bail in early 2026

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the principle of parity with co-accused persons already released on bail

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

The Court also relied upon the principle of Parity, which suggests that when co-accused individuals with similar roles or circumstances are granted bail, the same relief should be extended to other similarly situated applicants to ensure judicial consistency

Furthermore, the court considered the absence of previous criminal antecedents as a favorable factor for the exercise of discretionary power under Section 483 BNSS

The Court evaluated the applicant’s role against that of the co-accused who had already been granted bail. Despite the State’s opposition—which highlighted that transactions exceeding Rs. 1.12 Crores were routed through the applicant's account and that two other co-accused had their bail rejected—the High Court emphasized the procedural developments since the rejection of the applicant's first bail application

The Court observed that co-accused Suraj Kumar and Nitish Kumar had been granted bail on 26.02.2026. Reasoning that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since June 2025, the Court determined that the principle of parity outweighed the previous rejection on merits, making the applicant eligible for release subject to stringent conditions to ensure trial participation

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: mandatory attendance at all trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements), a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments, and the threat of proceedings under Section 209 BNS for misuse of liberty. The Court held that parity with co-accused and lack of criminal history justified the grant of bail despite the prior rejection