Bail Cannot Be Granted Solely On Parity Without Assessing Accused's Specific Role : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has set aside an Allahabad High Court order granting bail on the ground of parity, holding that the High Court failed to consider the specific role attributed to the accused in the alleged offence.

“while utilizing parity as a ground for bail, the same must focus on the role of the accused and cannot be utilized solely because another accused person was granted bail in connection with the same offence, and neither can this ground be claimed as a matter of right.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh while hearing the complainant's plea against the grant of bail to the accused on the ground of parity.

The prosecution alleged that an altercation escalated into fatal violence when a group of accused persons blocked the complainant's family's way. During the confrontation, Respondent no.2-Rajveer, is said to have instigated co-accused Aditya to shoot the deceased. While Aditya's bail was rejected, the High Court had earlier granted bail to Suresh Pal (Aditya's father), a decision the Supreme Court subsequently overturned for lack of proper reasoning.

Relying solely on the bail granted to Suresh Pal, the High Court later extended bail to Respondent no.2-Rajveer (the alleged instigator) and Prince, another co-accused, without substantive analysis of their individual roles.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Karol relied on the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana(Koli) and Anr., (2021) 6 SCC 230 to emphasize that parity requires similarity in roles and circumstances, not merely that accused persons face the same charges.

“There can be different roles played - someone part of a large group, intending to intimidate; an instigator of violence; someone who throws hands at the other side, instigated by such words spoken by another, someone who fired a weapon or swung a machete - parity of these people will be with those who have performed similar acts, and not with someone who was part of the group to intimidate the other by the sheer size of the gathering, with another who attempted to hack away at the opposer's limbs with a weapon.”, the court observed.

“The High Court appears, plainly, to have erroneously granted bail to the accused-respondent on the sole ground of parity which it has misunderstood as a tool of direct application as opposed to parity being focused on the role played by the accused and not the thread of the same offence being the only common factor between the accused persons.”, the court added.

In Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and Anr., (2022) 4 SCC 497, the Court emphasized that though a detailed reasoning is not warranted in a bail order, the order should not be devoid of any reasoning, and laid down facts that must be independently assessed while granting bail:

a. the nature of the allegations made against the accused;

b. severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction;

c. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused;

d. tampering of the evidence;

e. the frivolity in the case of the prosecution;

f. criminal antecedents of the accused; and

g. a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge against the accused.

Applying the law, the Court noted that Respondent No. 2's role as an instigator was distinct and could not be compared with that of Suresh Pal. Hence, the bail granted to him was set aside, and he was ordered to surrender. 

Appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: SAGAR VERSUS STATE OF UP & ANR. (and connected case)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1155

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Anshul Sharma, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Chahar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. Rohit Swarup, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Ashwina Lakra, Adv. Ms. Arushi Singh, Adv. 

Amicus Curiae - Priyanka Singh