The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused in an armed robbery case on the ground of parity with co-accused who have already been released, emphasizing the absence of any direct overt act by the petitioner. The order underscores the importance of equitable treatment in bail jurisprudence where roles are materially similar and no distinct criminal act is attributed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Yoshwa Rajendra @ Joshwa Rajendra, is accused No.2 in Crime No.7/2025 registered at Ullal Police Station, Dakshina Kannada, for offences under Sections 126(2), 127(7), 309(2), 309(4), 310(2), 351(2), 324(1), 331(5), 61, 238, 311, 317(3), 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 3(1), 4, 25(1B)(b), and 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The case arises from an alleged armed robbery of a co-operative society in Mangalore.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on or about 15.01.2025 at a co-operative society in Ullal, Dakshina Kannada.
- Accused No.1 is alleged to be the mastermind of the robbery and has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
- Accused No.3 and Accused No.9 are alleged to have pointed firearms at witnesses CWs.1 to 5 to prevent them from raising alarm.
- Accused No.2 is alleged to have stood in front of the society to prevent public entry during the robbery.
- Accused No.2 is also alleged to have purchased a gunny bag, which was later used by Accused Nos.2 and 7 to collect and carry stolen ornaments.
- A live bullet was allegedly handed over by Accused No.3 to Accused No.2.
- After the robbery, Accused Nos.2, 7, 8, and 9 fled the scene in a vehicle driven by Accused No.1.
- Accused Nos.7, 8, and 9 are yet to be arrested or have been granted bail or are absconding.
- Accused No.9 remains absconding.
- The petitioner is a resident of Dombivili, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Procedural History
- 15.01.2025: Alleged robbery and FIR registered at Ullal Police Station.
- 20.01.2025: Charge sheet filed as CC No.354/2025 before the 7th JMFC Court, Mangalore.
- 10.02.2025: Accused No.1 granted bail by a coordinate Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
- 18.03.2025: Accused Nos.7 and 8 granted bail by the same Bench.
- 05.04.2025: Petitioner filed this Criminal Petition under Section 439 CrPC (now Section 483 BNSS) seeking bail.
- 05.05.2026: Hearing before Justice V. Srishananda.
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks bail with appropriate conditions, arguing that his role is not distinct from other accused who have already been released, and that denial of bail on the basis of his residence in Maharashtra is unreasonable.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be granted to an accused on the ground of parity when co-accused in the same case, with materially similar roles and no distinct overt act, have already been released, and whether the petitioner’s residence outside the state justifies denial of bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the role attributed to the accused No.2 is passive and non-violent - merely standing guard and procuring a gunny bag. No evidence links him to the actual robbery, threat, or use of firearms. He emphasized that Accused No.1 (the mastermind) and Accused No.3 (who pointed the gun) have already been granted bail. Accused No.9, who also pointed a gun, remains absconding. Denial of bail to the petitioner on the basis of his residence in Maharashtra is arbitrary and violates the principle of parity. Reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to argue that bail should not be denied merely because the accused is a non-resident.
For the Respondent
The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner is a resident of Maharashtra and therefore poses a flight risk. The High Court Government Pleader argued that the gravity of offences under BNS and the Arms Act, including armed robbery and use of firearms, warrants strict scrutiny. The prosecution expressed concern that the petitioner may abscond if released, given his non-local status.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the role of the petitioner as described in Column No.17 of the charge sheet and compared it with the roles of other accused who have been granted bail. It noted that the petitioner is not alleged to have committed any overt act of violence, nor did he wield a weapon or threaten witnesses. The actual threats and use of firearms were attributed to Accused Nos.3 and 9. The Court observed that Accused No.1, the alleged mastermind, and Accused No.3, who directly threatened witnesses, have already been released on bail.
"When there is no specific overt act as to actual robbing by accused No.2 and the persons who robbed the society and also threatened CWs.1 to 5 in a gun point, namely, accused No.3 has been granted bail and accused No.9 is still absconding, on the ground of parity alone, the present petitioner is to be enlarged on bail."
The Court held that denying bail to the petitioner solely on the basis of his residence in Maharashtra, without any evidence of past flight or tampering with evidence, would be discriminatory and contrary to the principle of equal treatment under law. The Court further noted that the prosecution’s apprehension can be adequately addressed through conditions, including cash surety, local surety, and restrictions on movement.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted bail to Accused No.2 on the following conditions: (i) execution of a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with three sureties - one cash surety of Rs.1,00,000, one local surety, and one regular surety; (ii) no threat to prosecution witnesses; (iii) regular attendance in court; (iv) no travel outside Maharashtra and Karnataka without prior permission; (v) no commission of any further criminal activity. Violation of any condition shall render the bail liable for cancellation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parity in Bail Grants Is a Valid Ground
- Practitioners may now invoke parity as a standalone ground for bail when co-accused with identical or lesser roles have been released.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate a material distinction in the role or risk profile of the applicant.
Non-Residency Alone Cannot Justify Bail Denial
- Residence outside the state is not a sufficient ground to deny bail unless there is concrete evidence of flight risk or past non-appearance.
- Courts must impose tailored conditions (e.g., cash surety, local surety) rather than outright denial.
Passive Roles in Robbery Cases Warrant Liberal Bail
- Accused who perform ancillary or non-violent roles (e.g., lookout, procurement of tools) without direct use of weapons or threats are entitled to bail on parity grounds.
- Courts must distinguish between active perpetrators and facilitators in multi-accused cases.
