The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to a petitioner accused of serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Arms Act. The decision underscores the principle of parity in bail matters, even when allegations are grave.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sarver, sought regular bail in FIR No. 623 dated 13.10.2025, registered at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal. The FIR was lodged under Sections 191(3), 190, 115(2), 109(1), 333, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 148, 149, 323, 307, 452, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), along with Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act.
Key Facts
- The complaint was filed by Saleem son of Akdad Ali and Talim son of Yamin, residents of Village Balhera, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal.
- On 13.10.2025 at about 11:00 a.m., the accused persons, namely Harun, Faruk, Sada, Sahil, Sharukh, and Kyum, allegedly:
- Came to the complainants' house, abused them, and threatened to kill them.
- Formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the complainants' house in several cars and motorcycles.
- Assaulted the inmates with a common object and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy.
- Opened fire with pistols with an intention to commit murder.
- Several members of the complainants' family sustained grievous injuries and were shifted to Government Hospital, Karnal, for medical treatment.
- The petitioner was arrested and remained in judicial custody since 01.04.2026.
Procedural History
- 13.10.2025: FIR No. 623 registered at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal.
- 01.04.2026: Petitioner arrested and taken into judicial custody.
- 27.07.2026: Present petition (CRM-M-39856-2026) filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking regular bail.
The Parties' Positions
-
For the Petitioner:
- The petitioner was not involved in the alleged occurrence and had been wrongly implicated.
- Respondents No. 2 and 3 executed an affidavit dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-2) stating that the petitioner was not involved in the occurrence.
- The principal co-accused, from whom firearms were allegedly recovered, had already been granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide orders dated:
- 29.12.2025
- 30.12.2025
- 03.01.2026
- 05.01.2026
- 07.01.2026
- 09.01.2026
- The petitioner stood on a similar footing to the co-accused and was entitled to the benefit of parity.
- The petitioner had been in custody for over three months, and the trial was yet to commence meaningfully.
-
For the Respondent-State:
- Opposed the grant of regular bail, contending that the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the manner in which the offence was alleged to have been committed, disentitled the petitioner to bail.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the concession of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner, accused of serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Arms Act, was entitled to regular bail on the principle of parity, given that co-accused in similar circumstances had already been granted bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner relied on the principle of parity, arguing that since the principal co-accused had been granted bail, the petitioner, who was similarly situated, should also be granted bail.
- The affidavit executed by respondents No. 2 and 3, stating that the petitioner was not involved in the occurrence, was a relevant circumstance for considering the bail application.
- The petitioner had been in custody for over three months, and the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future, violating the petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
For the Respondent-State
- The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the manner in which the offence was alleged to have been committed, disentitled the petitioner to bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court considered the principle of parity, noting that the principal co-accused, from whom firearms were allegedly recovered, had already been granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal. The petitioner's alleged involvement was confined to membership of the unlawful assembly, with no specific overt act or recovery attributed to him. The Court held that the petitioner stood on a similar footing to the co-accused and was entitled to the benefit of parity.
"The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 01.04.2026, and no distinguishing circumstance has been pointed out by the learned State counsel so as to justify denial of the same relief extended to the similarly situated co-accused."
The Court also took note of the affidavit executed by respondents No. 2 and 3, which categorically stated that the petitioner was not involved in the occurrence. The Court observed that continued incarceration, given the delay in the trial, would not subserve any useful purpose and would be inconsistent with the petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. The bail was granted subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
- The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court.
- The petitioner shall provide permanent and present residential addresses, PAN, Aadhaar number, bank account details, and immovable property details.
- The petitioner shall intimate any change in address or mobile number within seven days.
- The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on all dates unless exempted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parity Principle in Bail Matters
- Courts may grant bail on the principle of parity if co-accused in similar circumstances have already been granted bail.
- The absence of distinguishing circumstances between co-accused can be a decisive factor in bail applications.
Affidavits as Relevant Circumstances
- Affidavits from complainants or witnesses stating that an accused was not involved in the occurrence can be considered as a relevant circumstance for bail.
- Such affidavits, while not conclusive, can tip the balance in favor of granting bail, especially when coupled with other factors like delay in trial.
Right to Speedy Trial
- Prolonged incarceration without meaningful progress in the trial can violate an accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Courts may grant bail to ensure that the right to a speedy trial is not infringed, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.
