Similarly placed accused are entitled to bail on parity with co-accused already granted bail.

In brief

The question

1. Whether accused Nos. 1 and 3 were entitled to regular bail in light of the bail granted to accused Nos. 2 and 4 and the circumstances recorded in the earlier bail order

The court held

The Court allowed both petitions and directed that accused Nos. 1 and 3 be released on bail in S.C. No. 1497/2021

It also directed

Each petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, one of whom must be a local surety, and to comply with the specified attendance, non-interference, non-reoffending and jurisdictional conditions

01Facts

The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 and 1 respectively, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 201, 302 and 120(B), read with Section 34 of the IPC

¶ 1 · p. 3

The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to murder an elderly couple and rob valuables from their home

¶ 5 · p. 4

Accused No. 4 had previously been granted bail after material prosecution witnesses were examined and, according to the submissions recorded in that order, had not supported the prosecution; accused No. 2 was subsequently granted bail

¶ 3, 6–7 · pp. 3–6

The present petitions were successive bail applications

¶ 1 · p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether accused Nos. 1 and 3 were entitled to regular bail in light of the bail granted to accused Nos. 2 and 4 and the circumstances recorded in the earlier bail order

¶ 3, 6–8 · pp. 3–6

ii.2. Whether the allegations and the circumstantial nature of the prosecution case justified granting bail to the petitioners subject to conditions

¶ 5, 7–8 · pp. 4–6

03Law Applied

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail.

¶ 1, 5–8 · pp. 3–6

The Court considered the principle of parity where similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail, alongside the circumstances relevant to the prosecution case and its progress.

¶ 1, 5–8 · pp. 3–6

The alleged offences were under Sections 201, 302 and 120(B), read with Section 34 of the IPC

¶ 1, 5–8 · pp. 3–6

The Court relied on its earlier bail orders in the same case; no separate precedent or broader legal test was identified in this order

¶ 6–7 · pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 201 Section 302 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and that the allegations against all four accused were similar

¶ 7–8 · p. 6

Accused Nos. 4 and 2 had already been granted bail, and the earlier order concerning accused No. 4 recorded that material witnesses examined had not supported the prosecution

¶ 6–7 · pp. 5–6

In those circumstances, the Court considered the petitioners entitled to the same relief, subject to safeguards against non-appearance, witness tampering, further offences and leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction

¶ 8 · pp. 6–7