#parity in bail

Allahabad High Court grants bail in a case under BNS Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 126(2), and 105, emphasizing delay in FIR and lack of specific allegations against the accused.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to a mother-in-law accused in a dowry death case, holding that blanket allegations shared with a co-accused already on bail, without individualized evidence, justify bail under BNSS Section 482. This reinforces that parity and lack of specific culpability can override the gravity of non-bailable offences when investigation risks are absent.

The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner labeled Accused No. 3 despite no direct allegations, FIR, or evidence linking him to the offense, holding that financial transactions with a co-accused’s sibling, absent any active role or intent, cannot substitute for criminal proof. This reinforces that arbitrary designation in charge sheets cannot override the constitutional right to liberty under Section 438 CrPC, setting a critical precedent for individuals caught in overbroad investigations.

Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail to an accused with four prior criminal records, emphasizing parity with co-accused and the absence of forensic evidence linking him to the alleged weapon. The ruling underscores that criminal history alone cannot justify bail denial when evidence is lacking and co-accused have been released.

Allahabad HC grants bail to an accused in a BNS and Arms Act case, holding that parity with co-accused already released and absence of custodial interrogation requirements entitle the applicant to bail. The ruling reinforces that identical roles in an offence demand equal treatment under bail jurisprudence, impacting pre-trial detention fairness.

Allahabad HC grants bail in a BNS case where the prosecution failed to produce medical records of the deceased prior to death, delayed FIR filing, and lacked video evidence linking the accused. The court emphasized parity in bail for co-accused, reinforcing that procedural lapses can tilt the balance in favor of personal liberty.

Bombay HC grants bail under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita where the accused’s role in a mob assault was cursorily alleged without specific evidence of participation. The ruling reinforces that vague identification or mere presence at the scene does not justify detention, setting a precedent for parity in bail matters.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that bail cannot be denied on uncorroborated allegations when co-accused have been granted bail, especially in spontaneous incidents without deadly weapons. The decision reinforces parity under Article 21 and sets a precedent for bail in mob violence cases under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

MP High Court rules that call detail records and financial transactions provide sufficient grounds to distinguish an accused from co-accused, justifying bail denial under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The ruling underscores the weight of digital evidence in cyber fraud cases, even where parity claims are raised.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that an accused who merely raised a provocative slogan (lalkara) and carried a weapon without using it cannot be denied bail under Sections 307 and 336 IPC. The court emphasized minimal role, completed investigation, and prolonged custody as grounds for release, setting a precedent for bail in non-violent participation cases.

Chhattisgarh High Court rejects bail in cyber fraud case, holding that parity with co-accused does not override seriousness of economic offences under BNS.

Chhattisgarh High Court grants anticipatory bail to ex-director of company, holding no involvement in post-resignation transactions and applying parity with co-accused granted bail.

Supreme Court sets aside bail granted to accused with multiple FIRs, forged IDs, and history of absconding, emphasizing that parity cannot override criminal record and societal risk.