Second regular bail granted on grounds of parity and hostility of the injured witness.

The applicant sought a second regular bail application following the rejection of his first application on July 9, 2025

The prosecution alleged that on February 24, 2025, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the complainant’s nephews, Sonu and Mannu, with sticks and used obscene language during a wedding ceremony in village Dhandhapur

The assault was purportedly motivated by the victims dancing with local village girls

The applicant was arrested on May 24, 2025, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

During the trial, the injured victim, Sonu Sandilaya, was examined but failed to support the prosecution's case, subsequently being declared hostile

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the grounds of parity and the hostile testimony of the material witness

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

Sections 296 (Obscene acts and songs), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 109 (Abetment), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The judicial principle of parity, whereby an accused may be granted bail if similarly situated co-accused have already been released

The Court analyzed the change in circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application.

It noted that three co-accused—Karamchand, Krishna Kumar, and Anil Singh—had already been granted bail by the High Court in October 2025 and February 2026

the Court observed that the injured witness, Sonu Sandilaya, had been examined by the trial court and turned hostile, significantly weakening the evidentiary link against the applicant

Despite the State’s contention regarding the gravity of the injuries, the Court found that the applicant’s case was identical to that of the co-accused who were already at liberty

Given that the applicant had been incarcerated since May 2025 and the trial was expected to be protracted, the Court determined that further detention was unnecessary

The holding was based on the principles of parity and the hostile testimony of the injured witness

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions, including: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments; he must appear at all trial stages, including the framing of charges and recording of statements; and any violation of bail terms would trigger proceedings under Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS