Introduction
The parity principle in bail jurisprudence — that a person who is similarly placed to a co-accused who has already been granted bail is entitled to the same benefit unless there are cogent reasons to distinguish their cases — is one of the most frequently invoked and judicially recognized grounds for bail in India. What makes this principle particularly powerful is that it applies even in serious cases, including those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, where courts otherwise exercise special caution. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur applied this principle cleanly and directly in MCRC No. 40037 of 2025 — the second bail application filed in a POCSO case arising from the same FIR that had earlier seen co-accused Pankaj Pandey @ Pankaj Gautam granted bail in MCRC 11343/2025.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Abhay @ Tinkal Singh, filed his second application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with FIR/Crime No. 642/2024 registered at Police Station Jamodhi Sidhi, District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh.
The applicant had been in judicial custody since 11 October 2024.
His first bail application (M.Cr.C. No. 5729/2025) had been rejected on merits vide order dated 07 March 2025.
The offences alleged were under the following provisions:
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 137(2), BNS 2023 | Kidnapping |
| Section 74, BNS 2023 | Assault or use of criminal force to outrage modesty |
| Section 308(2), BNS 2023 | Extortion |
| Section 107, BNS 2023 | Abetment |
| Section 61(2), BNS 2023 | Criminal conspiracy |
| Section 3(5), BNS 2023 | Common intention |
| Sections 7 & 8, POCSO Act 2012 | Sexual assault on a child |
The Parity Foundation — Co-Accused Already on Bail
The entire basis of the second bail application rested on a single but powerful legal development that had occurred after the first bail application was rejected — the grant of bail to co-accused Pankaj Pandey @ Pankaj Gautam by a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court.
This Court had already analysed and published the order in Pankaj Pandey @ Pankaj Gautam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC 11343/2025), decided on 26 March 2025, where bail was granted on the following grounds:
- The co-accused was present at the scene but had not committed any specific overt act
- The mobile phone and motorcycle used in the crime belonged to other accused persons
- The co-accused had no criminal antecedents
- The bail of another co-accused had been rejected specifically on the ground of criminal antecedents — a ground absent in Pankaj Pandey’s case
- The period of custody was a relevant consideration
The present applicant — Abhay @ Tinkal Singh — arose from the same FIR and was in a similar position, making the parity argument directly applicable.
Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant
Senior Advocate Shri Mrigendra Singh, appearing through video conferencing with Shri Rohit Mishra and Ms. Akanksha Singh Chauhan, placed a focused and targeted argument before the Court:
Parity with Co-Accused Pankaj Pandey @ Pankaj Gautam The Coordinate Bench of the High Court had, vide order dated 26 March 2025 in MCRC 11343/2025, granted bail to co-accused Pankaj Pandey @ Pankaj Gautam in the same FIR under similar circumstances. The present applicant’s case was not materially different. To maintain parity between similarly placed co-accused persons, the present applicant was also entitled to be enlarged on bail.
State’s Opposition
The learned Panel Lawyer for the State offered a brief opposition, submitting that no case for bail was made out. No specific distinguishing ground was placed before the Court to differentiate the present applicant from the co-accused who had already been granted bail.
The Court’s Decision
Hon’ble Justice Devnarayan Mishra, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and specifically noting the need to maintain parity, was inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The application was accordingly allowed — without commenting on the merits of the case.
Directions issued by the Court:
- The applicant Abhay @ Tinkal Singh shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court
- The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on all dates fixed during the pendency of trial
- The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Section 480(3) of the BNSS, 2023
Legal Significance of This Order
This order is compact but legally rich, touching on several important principles:
① Parity Principle Prevails Even After First Application Was Rejected on Merits Perhaps the most significant aspect of this order is that the first bail application had been rejected on merits — not merely dismissed as withdrawn. A rejection on merits creates a higher threshold for a subsequent application, which must demonstrate a change in circumstances. The grant of bail to a similarly placed co-accused after the first rejection constitutes precisely such a change in circumstances — a fresh and material development that justifies reconsideration of bail.
② Parity in POCSO Cases — Not an Absolute Bar Courts exercise special caution in POCSO matters, given the nature of offences involving children. However, this order confirms that even in POCSO cases, the parity principle is not displaced. Where a co-accused in the same case has been granted bail, the remaining accused persons who are similarly situated cannot be denied the same benefit without cogent and distinguishing reasons.
③ The Chain of Parity — One Bail Order Creates a Domino Effect This order is a clear illustration of how one well-argued bail order for a co-accused can create a chain of parity arguments in a multi-accused case. The bail granted to Pankaj Pandey in MCRC 11343/2025 directly enabled the grant of bail to Abhay @ Tinkal Singh in MCRC 40037/2025. Practitioners should always monitor bail orders for co-accused in connected matters and deploy them proactively in subsequent applications.
④ Extended Custody Combined with Parity The applicant had been in custody since 11 October 2024 — nearly a year by the time of this order in September 2025. The combination of an extended custody period and the parity argument created a compelling case that the Court accepted.
⑤ Second Application After Rejection on Merits — Maintainability A subsequent bail application after rejection on merits is maintainable where there is a change in circumstances. The change here — the grant of bail to a co-accused — was a clear, documented, and judicially recognized change that the Court accepted as sufficient justification for entertaining the second application and granting bail.
Relevant Legal Provisions
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 483, BNSS 2023 | Regular Bail by High Court |
| Section 480(3), BNSS 2023 | Conditions on Release on Bail |
| Sections 7 & 8, POCSO Act | Sexual Assault on Child |
| Section 137(2), BNS 2023 | Kidnapping |
| Section 74, BNS 2023 | Assault to Outrage Modesty |
| Section 3(5), BNS 2023 | Common Intention |
Conclusion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order in Abhay @ Tinkal Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC 40037/2025) is a direct and practically valuable illustration of the parity principle at work — even in a serious POCSO case where the first bail application had been rejected on merits. It demonstrates that the grant of bail to a co-accused in the same FIR is a material change in circumstances that can sustain a second bail application, and that parity between similarly placed accused persons is a principle that courts will uphold even in sensitive matters. Read together with the earlier order in MCRC 11343/2025, this case provides practitioners with a complete picture of how the parity argument can be built and deployed across connected bail matters under the BNSS framework.
