Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Sagar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 5074 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8865 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 5075 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8866 of 2025]
Decided On : 28-11-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Grant of bail – Parameters – Parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted – Bail has often been stated to be rule and jail, exception – However, that does not mean that relief of bail is to be granted without due regard to circumstances involved in alleged offence for which accused person has been arrested – Court, while granting bail, has to consider a number of aspects – While utilizing parity as a ground for bail, same must focus on role of accused and cannot be utilized solely because another accused person was granted bail in connection with same offence, and neither can this ground be claimed as a matter of right – In present case, roles of these two people at the time of shooting of deceased cannot be said to be same, even though they may be holding a common intention of causing harm to other side – As such, consideration of bail, on parity, is misplaced – Judgment of High Court granting bail set aside. (Paras 10, 11, 15, 16 and 20)
(B) Words and Phrases – “Parity” – Word ‘parity’ is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as “equality, especially of pay or position” – When weighing an application on parity, it is ‘position’ that is clincher – Requirement of ‘position’ is not met only by involvement in same offence – Position means what 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 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 group to intimidate other by sheer size of gathering, with another who attempted to hack away at opposer’s limbs with a weapon. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The question that arises for consideration is whether, as done by High Court in impugned order, parity with co-accused persons can be the sole reason for granting bail.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and considerations regarding bail are as follows:
Bail is generally regarded as a rule, with jail being the exception, but this does not mean bail should be granted without considering the specific circumstances of the case. The court must evaluate various factors before granting bail (!) (!) .
Parity with co-accused persons cannot be the sole or primary reason for granting bail. While parity may be a relevant factor, it must be considered in conjunction with the role played by the accused, the nature of the offence, and other relevant circumstances. The role and position of the accused in the crime are crucial in assessing parity (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The concept of ‘parity’ refers to the role or position of the accused in the crime, not merely involvement in the same offence. Different roles—such as instigator, participant, or mere member of a group—must be distinguished, and bail should not be granted solely based on involvement in the same offence or on the grounds of parity (!) (!) (!) .
The court must exercise its discretion judiciously, considering the gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and other relevant factors. An order granting bail should be reasoned, and failure to provide reasons can be grounds for setting aside the order (!) (!) (!) .
When a higher court reviews bail decisions, it must ensure that the principles of natural justice and proper reasoning are followed. Orders without adequate reasons or based solely on parity are liable to be reconsidered or set aside (!) (!) .
The assessment of whether to grant bail involves balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, considering the nature of the offence, the accused’s role, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence. The order should reflect a comprehensive evaluation of these factors (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal approach emphasizes that while parity can be a factor in bail decisions, it cannot be the exclusive or decisive basis. The role and position of the accused in the offence, along with other relevant circumstances, must guide the court’s exercise of discretion. Proper reasoning and consideration of all pertinent factors are essential for a just bail order.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Leave granted.
Crl. Appeal No. 5074 of 2025 [SLP (Crl) No. 8865 of 2025]
2. The appellant-complainant is aggrieved by an order granting bail in connection with Case Crime No. 0159 P.S. Hastinapur, dated 28th June, 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506, Indian Penal Code, 18601 [Hereinafter referred as “IPC”] to one Rajveer by order dated 3rd January 2025 in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 44876 of 2024 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
3. A perusal of the First Information Report2 [FIR for short] reveals that the genesis of the instant proceedings was a verbal spat between the appellant-complainant and one Suresh Pal and his son Aditya, who were his co-villagers. The former’s father, Sonveer, opposed the escalation of the dispute, resulting in threats from the latter. On the day of lodging of the FIR, while the appellant-complainant and his parents were, for matters unrelated to the accused, on their way to the land of one Ravindra, then allegedly, the accused persons namely Suresh Pal, Rajveer, Saurav, Aditya, Prince, and Bijendra, armed with pistols came forward to block their way and prevent them from proceeding further. The respondent-accused Rajveer came forward and threatened them to the effect that they would all, particularly Sonveer, be taught a lesson for opposing them. Suresh Pal, then instigated the accused Aditya to shoot Sonveer, which he did, and the bullet hit him on the chest below the shoulder, making him fall to the ground and meet his end.
4. Consequent to the FIR, accused Rajveer was arrested. The record speaks about his applications for regular bail being rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut on at least two occasions. It is the second order of rejection dated 12th September 2024, which was challenged before the High Court and resulted in the impugned order. The reasoning given by the Additional Sessions Judge, in rejecting the bail application, was 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.
5. The High Court, in terms of the impugned order, observed thus:
5. Bail has been opposed on behalf of the plaintiff and the State, though the factual aspect of similarity of the applicant with the co-accused has not been contested.
6. The principles enunciated by this Court in Nanha Putra Nabha Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1993 Criminal Law Journal 938 and by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Bishnoi vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and Satinder Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2022 INSC 690, without expressing any opinion on the facts and circumstances and merits of the case, In the opinion of the court, the applicant is entitled to get bail on the basis of equality. The bail application of the applicant is accepted on the basis of equality.”
6. The only two observations on the merit of the bail application are that the respondent-accused has no criminal antecedents and that his father had been released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 22nd November 2024 in Misc. Bail Application No. 36116 of 2024. In essence, however, parity with his father was the only ground to grant the respondent-accused bail.
Bail – Parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted – Court, while granting bail, has to consider a number of aspects – While utilizing parity as a ground for bail, same must focus on r....
The principle of parity in bail applications requires careful consideration of the accused's specific role and circumstances, rather than being an absolute basis for granting bail.
A litigant must approach the court with clean hands; suppression of material facts disqualifies them from receiving judicial relief.
The decision emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the process of justice when deciding on....
The court cannot grant bail on the ground of parity if the specific overt acts and the severity of the injuries sustained do not warrant bail.
Bail cannot be granted solely on ground of parity without considering relevant features of case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
