Key Points: - The judgment discusses bail as a judicial discretion requiring recording of reasons and proper application of mind (!) (!) (!) . - It criticizes High Court’s reliance on parity and mere similarity of weapons without considering accused roles and the gravity of offences; emphasizes cross-FIR content and five deaths to assess seriousness (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It cites Sanjay Chandra and Ram Govind Upadhyay standards for factors to weigh in bail decisions, including gravity, likelihood of repetition, witnesses’ safety, and prima facie involvement (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It holds that bail orders granting parity-based relief without adequate reasoning constitute perversity and are set aside; directs reconsideration with proper reasoning (!) (!) . - It concludes by setting aside specific High Court bail orders for six accused and remanding to Sessions for compliance, with details of accused and dates of prior orders (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the standard for granting bail under Section 439 CrPC as applied by the Supreme Court in this case?

What are the errors identified by the Supreme Court in the High Court’s bail orders and how should parity be properly considered in bail decisions?

What are the consequences or reliefs ordered by the Supreme Court regarding bail orders in this batch of cases?