Supreme Court: In a case where the Court was called upon to decide whether parity with co-accused can be the sole ground for granting bail, the bench of Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., held that parity with co-accused cannot be the sole ground for granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offences. The Court made clear that bail orders must consider the gravity of the offence, the accused’s role, potential risk to justice, and other relevant factors.
Background of the case
In the case at hand, the appellant-complainant’s father was shot dead by accused ‘A’ during a verbal spat that escalated into a violent encounter. The co-accused ‘R’ allegedly instigated the accused to shoot, while co-accused ‘S’, ‘P’ and others were part of the mob.
Co-accused R’s bail applications were rejected twice by the Additional Sessions Judge due to the presence of ante mortem injuries resulting in, more particularly, the gunshot wound and two lacerated wounds. It was observed that the nature of the crime of which the accused had been charged is serious and, in these circumstances, bail had to be rejected.
The Allahabad High Court, however, granted bail to co-accused ‘R’ and ‘P’, primarily on parity with co-accused ‘S’, who had been granted bail earlier, citing no criminal history and no likelihood of fleeing.
Supreme Court on ‘Parity’ as sole ground for granting bail
The Supreme Court reiterated that bail is the rule, and jail, the exception, it cannot be granted indiscriminately, without due regard to the circumstances involved in the alleged offence for which the accused person has been arrested.
The Court observed that, in the case at hand, the High Court appeared 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.
Referring to numerous judgments, the Court observed that they all spoke in one voice that parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted.
Explaining further, the Court said that the word ‘parity’ is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “equality, especially of pay or position.” Hence, when weighing an application on parity, it is ‘position’ that is the clincher. It explained that,
“The requirement of ‘position’ is not met only by involvement in the same offence. Position means what the person whose application is being weighed, his position in crime, i.e., his role etc. 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.”
Supreme Court on ‘different roles played by co-accused’ in case at hand
The Court noted that in the case at hand, ‘R’ was granted bail solely on parity with his father, ‘S’, without considering the gravity of the offence or his role as instigator.
The Court observed that ‘R’ asked the accused ‘A’ to shoot the deceased while ‘S’ was a member of the mob yielding a weapon, as per the FIR. It was observed that the roles of these two people at the time of the shooting of the deceased cannot be said to be the same, even though they may be holding a common intention of causing harm to the other side. Hence, consideration of bail, on parity, was found to be misplaced. The Court, hence, set aside High Court’s bail order directed ‘R’ to surrender within 2 weeks.
Regarding P’s bail, the Court noted that the same was granted without assigning any reasons, violating principles of natural justice. Hence, the said bail order was also set aside and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration with proper reasoning considering role, gravity, and all relevant factors.
[Sagar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2584, decided on 28-11-2025]
Judgment Authored by Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Amicus Curiae: Ms. Priyanka Singh
For Appellant(s): Mr. Anshul Sharma, Adv., Mr. Krishan Kumar, Adv., Ms. Sakshi Chahar, Adv., Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv., Mr. Sukhamrit Singh, Adv., Ms. Geetha Rani, Adv., Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
For Respondent(s): Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR, Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv., Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv.