The Supreme Court ruled that bail cannot be granted solely based on parity with co-accused, emphasizing that an individual’s specific role, culpability, and case circumstances must be assessed before granting bail, overturning the Allahabad High Court’s order.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that parity cannot be the sole basis for granting bail to an accused, reinforcing the importance of evaluating individual roles and specific circumstances in criminal cases. The ruling overturns a decision of the Allahabad High Court, which had granted bail to an accused solely because the co-accused had been granted bail.
The decision revisits and strengthens the principle that although “bail is the rule and jail the exception,” this principle does not eliminate the requirement of judicial scrutiny.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a murder in a village in Uttar Pradesh following a verbal altercation. According to the FIR, the accused persons blocked and threatened the complainant and his family. The respondent-accused Rajveer allegedly instigated co-accused Aditya to shoot the victim, who died on the spot due to gunshot injuries.
Rajveer’s earlier bail applications had been rejected by the Sessions Court, but the Allahabad High Court granted bail solely on the basis that his father and other co-accused had received bail, without assessing Rajveer’s individual role.
Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court
Can bail be granted purely based on parity with the co-accused without analyzing the specific role and circumstances of the applicant?
High Court’s Position
The High Court granted bail to Rajveer primarily by referring to the fact that another co-accused, his father Suresh Pal, had already been released on bail. The Court accepted the argument that the applicant’s role was similar and therefore, based on parity, he also deserved bail. It additionally noted that Rajveer did not have any prior criminal record and had been in custody since June 29, 2024, but did not examine the specific allegations attributed to him in the FIR or the nature of his involvement in the offence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court found the High Court order to be legally unsustainable, holding that it failed to demonstrate any application of mind or examination of relevant considerations such as the gravity of the offence, the distinct role assigned to Rajveer in instigating the shooting, and the potential impact of his release on the investigation and trial.
The Court observed that parity must relate to similarity of role and status in the crime, not merely involvement in the same occurrence. It clarified that the term parity implies equivalence of position, stressing that participation in the same incident does not create automatic equivalence of responsibility.
The bench explained that crimes involving multiple accused include varying degrees of culpability, ranging from instigators to actual perpetrators and passive supporters and that a person who instigates the firing of a weapon cannot claim parity with someone whose presence was only incidental.
The Court referred to earlier rulings and High Court precedents to emphasize unity in judicial interpretation. It noted:
“Parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted… Position means the role of the accused in the crime, not merely involvement in the same offence.”
— Supreme Court Bench
Thus, parity exists only between persons who performed similar actions.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail order and directed the accused Rajveer, to surrender within two weeks. It further remanded the bail matter of another co-accused, Prince, back to the High Court due to the absence of reasoning in the original bail order.
Case Title:
SAGAR VS STATE OF UP & ANR.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8865 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT
