Yes—the Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that when a co-accused on identical charges secures bail and the State does not oppose, parity mandates the same relief. This decision upholds existing precedent on bail parity and serves as binding authority within the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction for similarly placed petitioners.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM (M) 1087 of 2025 of Saidul Mallick vs State of West Bengal |
| CNR | WBCHCA0327272025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (BNS 2023; Arms Act; Explosive Substances Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the principle of parity entitles the petitioner to bail under Section 483, BNS 2023 when a co-accused similarly circumstanced has already been released on bail. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when a co-accused facing identical charges secures bail and the prosecution does not oppose, equal treatment demands grant of bail to the petitioner. The absence of any distinguishing circumstance or fresh material justified aligning the petitioner’s rights with those already recognised. Bail was granted on furnishing bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions (non-tampering, jurisdiction restrictions, appearance). This application of the parity principle ensures consistency and prevents arbitrariness in bail decisions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner applied for bail under Section 483 of BNS 2023 in connection with Chapra PS Case No. 95/2025 (offences under BNS 2023, Arms Act, Explosives Act). He sought parity with co-accused Sana @ Sona Mallick, who had earlier been granted bail. The State did not oppose. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that parity of treatment on bail extends to petitions under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Confirms that non-opposition by the State strengthens a parity-based bail application.
- Bail granted with standard conditions (bond, sureties, residence, non-interference, appearance), illustrating the Court’s template for such orders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Petitioner’s sole plea was parity with co-accused already on bail.
- No opposing material or submissions from the State on merits.
- Application of longstanding parity principle: equal cases must receive equal relief.
- Imposition of routine bail conditions to safeguard the trial process.
- Direction that failure to comply would permit cancellation without further reference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought identical bail relief as co-accused Sana @ Sona Mallick, on the same set of charges and circumstances.
State
- Did not oppose grant of bail.
Factual Background
- An FIR was registered at Chapra Police Station (Case No. 95 of 2025) under Sections 329(3), 118(2), 109, 103, 3(5) of BNS 2023, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.
- The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- A co-accused on identical charges had already been released on bail by the same Court.
- The State chose not to contest parity.
- The Court allowed bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties of like amount, imposing standard conditions.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: empowers High Courts to grant bail in appropriate cases.
- No novel interpretation—court applied established parity principle without expanding or narrowing statutory scope.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- CRM (M) 1087 of 2025 (CNR WBCHCA0327272025)
- 48 ARDR (2025)