Parity Alone Cannot Be Sole Ground For Granting Bail; High Court Orders Set Aside Or Remanded

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard appeals against orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which had granted bail to accused persons in connection with an alleged murder registered as Case Crime No. 0159 P.S. Hastinapur. The appeals challenged the High Court's reliance on parity with co-accused as the principal ground for enlargement on bail.

The Court allowed the appeals in part, set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the respondent-accused Rajveer and directed him to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, and remanded the bail order in respect of the co-accused Prince for fresh consideration by the High Court. The Court held that parity could not be the sole ground to grant bail and that parity must be assessed with reference to the accused’s "position" or role in the offence rather than mere involvement in the same incident. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “What flows from the above judgments, which have been referred to, only to the limited extent indicated above, is that the High Courts speak in one voice that parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted. That, undoubtedly, is the correct position in law. The word ‘parity’ is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as ‘equality, especially of pay or position.’ When weighing an application on parity, it is ‘position’ that is the clincher. 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.” The Court also noted that the High Court had allowed bail to Rajveer without assigning reasons beyond stating that “there is no material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice.”

Background The dispute arose from an alleged verbal spat between villagers, after which a group including Suresh Pal, Rajveer, Saurav, Aditya, Prince and Bijendra were said to have blocked the path of the complainant’s family. The FIR recorded that accused Aditya fired at the deceased Sonveer on instigation by others; Sonveer sustained a gunshot wound to the chest and died. Rajveer was accused of having instigated Aditya, and he was arrested. The Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, rejected Rajveer’s applications for regular bail on at least two occasions, noting ante-mortem injuries and the serious nature of the charges (Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 IPC).

The High Court granted bail to Rajveer by a short order on parity with co-accused Suresh Pal, observing parity and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since June 29, 2024. The Supreme Court, however, earlier quashed the order which had granted bail to Suresh Pal (Criminal Appeal No. 1200 of 2025) and directed his surrender, observing that the High Court had not applied its mind in a case involving allegations of murder. The present appeals questioned whether parity, as applied by the High Court, met the requirements laid down by earlier precedents including this Court’s decisions in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Makwana and the principles reiterated in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Supreme Court reviewed a series of High Court authorities and reiterated that parity is a desirable instrument of consistency but cannot operate as a “straightjacket formula” or a matter of right; parity must focus on the role and position of the accused in the crime. Applying these principles, the Court found that Rajveer’s role as an instigator differed from Suresh Pal’s role and that the High Court’s reliance on parity alone was misplaced. Consequently, Rajveer’s bail order was set aside and he was directed to surrender; the bail order in respect of Prince was quashed and remanded to the High Court to be reconsidered afresh in light of the gravity of the offence, the accused’s role and other relevant factors. The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1370 Case Title: Sagar v. State of U.P. & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated]