Legal Analysis on the Principle of Parity in Bail Applications

Overview

The principle of parity in bail applications refers to the idea that if one co-accused is granted bail, others in similar circumstances should also be granted bail. However, the legal documents reviewed indicate that this principle cannot be applied negatively to deny bail, nor can it be the sole basis for granting bail.

Key Findings

1. Parity Cannot Be Applied Negatively

• Courts have established that parity cannot be used as a negative criterion to reject a bail application. It can only be invoked positively to support the release of similarly placed accused individuals. This principle was emphasized in the document stating, parity cannot be applied in the negative to reject the bail application Mohammed Fisal @ Fisal S/o Jjamad Mohiddin VS State of Karnataka Electronic City Police, Bangalore - Karnataka (2015).

2. Parity Is Not the Sole Ground for Bail

• The courts consistently hold that while parity is a relevant consideration, it cannot be the sole basis for granting bail. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits, considering the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the accused''s role in the crime. This is supported by multiple references, including:
• Parity alone cannot be the sole criteria for granting bail NANHA S/o NABHAN KHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad (1992).
• Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail; it is one of the grounds for consideration Prafulla Sahu@Geda, aged about 28 years, S/o-Krushna Chandra Sahu, Vill: Sagarpadia, P. S. Baselisahi, Dist: Puri VS Sate of Orissa - Orissa (2013).

3. Distinguishable Roles and Circumstances

• The role of the applicant in the crime must be distinguishable from that of co-accused who have been granted bail. If the applicant''s involvement is more serious or different in nature, this can justify the denial of bail despite the principle of parity. For instance, one document states, the applicant cannot be granted bail on the ground of parity because his role is distinguishable from the role of co-accused Jasvir Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2009).

4. Judicial Discretion

• Courts have the discretion to consider various factors beyond parity, including the nature of the crime, evidence against the accused, and developments in the investigation. The principle of parity should not override the judicial assessment of these factors Ganesha @ Ganesh VS State Of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2020).

5. Importance of Reasoned Decisions

• If a bail order for a co-accused lacks reasoning, it cannot serve as a basis for granting bail to another accused on the ground of parity. The court must ensure that any bail granted is supported by adequate reasoning and consideration of the relevant factors [SAID KHAN
  VS STATE OF U P
• Allahabad (1989)](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500032116).

Conclusion and Recommendations

• The principle of parity is a relevant but not overriding factor in bail applications. It cannot be used negatively to deny bail and should not be the sole basis for granting it. Each case must be assessed on its own merits, considering the specific roles of the accused and the nature of the charges against them.
• It is advisable to prepare a comprehensive argument that highlights the distinct circumstances of your client compared to co-accused who may have been granted bail, ensuring that the application for bail is supported by strong reasoning and evidence.

References

• Mohammed Fisal @ Fisal S/o Jjamad Mohiddin VS State of Karnataka Electronic City Police, Bangalore - Karnataka (2015)
• NANHA S/o NABHAN KHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad (1992)
• Jasvir Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2009)
• Ganesha @ Ganesh VS State Of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2020)
• [SAID KHAN
  VS STATE OF U P
• Allahabad (1989)](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500032116)
• Prafulla Sahu@Geda, aged about 28 years, S/o-Krushna Chandra Sahu, Vill: Sagarpadia, P. S. Baselisahi, Dist: Puri VS Sate of Orissa - Orissa (2013)]