Can Bail Be Granted Solely on Parity Without Examining the Accused’s Individual Role?

The jurisprudence of bail requires courts to delicately balance two competing interests—the fundamental right to personal liberty and the need to ensure the integrity of the criminal process. While bail is the rule and jail the exception, the courts must nonetheless ensure that the grant of bail does not compromise justice or public interest.

Within this framework, one recurring argument advanced by accused persons is that of parity—the claim that because a co-accused has been granted bail, others implicated in the same case must receive similar treatment.

The Supreme Court in Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) held that bail cannot rest solely on parity. Mere involvement in the same FIR is insufficient—what matters is each accused’s individual role and circumstances.

Factual Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a fatal altercation in Hastinapur, Uttar Pradesh. According to the FIR, the complainant’s father, Sonveer, was shot dead after a verbal dispute escalated between the two groups. The accused persons allegedly blocked the complainant’s family, threatened them, and one of the accused, Aditya, fired at Sonveer after being instigated by another accused, Suresh Pal.

The respondent-accused Rajveer was alleged to have played a significant role in the confrontation. His bail applications were rejected twice by the Sessions Court, which highlighted the seriousness of the crime and the presence of ante-mortem injuries.

However, the Allahabad High Court granted him bail, relying almost entirely on parity, since his co-accused father, Suresh Pal, had been granted bail earlier. The High Court also noted the absence of a criminal history and period of custody, but did not examine the specific role of Rajveer.

The Supreme Court found this approach fundamentally flawed and set aside the High Court’s order. 

What Is ‘Parity’ in Bail Law?

The concept of parity suggests that when two or more accused persons stand on the same footing, fairness requires that they be treated similarly. However, the definition of “same footing” is crucial. Mere involvement in the same FIR or the same offence is insufficient.

The Supreme Court clarified that the true measure of parity is whether the accused’s role, conduct, and surrounding circumstances match those of the co-accused who has been granted bail. However:

• If the roles differ,
• If the evidence differs,
• If the antecedents differ,
• If the degree of participation differs,
• If the accused’s acts show greater culpability,

then the principle of parity cannot be invoked.

Thus, parity is not an automatic benefit, but a narrowly tailored doctrine that works only when facts and roles overlap to a near-identical degree.

Supreme Court’s Analysis: Why Parity Alone Is Insufficient

1. Bail Orders Must Reflect Application of Mind

The Court reiterated that while bail orders need not be detailed like judgments (especially at preliminary stages), they must show:

• Awareness of the allegations
• Basics of the evidence
• Consideration of the accused’s role
• Assessment of relevant parameters

In Rajveer’s case, the High Court failed to examine these factors. It relied only on the father’s bail order, which itself had been quashed by the Supreme Court earlier for lack of reasons.

Thus, the foundation for parity itself was unsound.

2. Role-Based Parity Is the Only Valid Parity

The Court clarified that parity does not mean equality among all accused regardless of involvement. Instead, parity is assessed based on the specific acts attributed to each accused.

In this case:

• Rajveer allegedly instigated the shooter and verbally threatened the complainant's party.
• Suresh Pal was part of the armed group and involved in the verbal altercation.
• Aditya fired the fatal shot and was refused bail.

The roles were clearly not identical.

The Court observed:

“Position means the accused’s position in crime, i.e., his role. Being named in the same offence is not sufficient to claim parity.”

Thus, the High Court misunderstood the doctrine of parity as a mechanical equality, whereas the correct approach is role-based scrutiny.

3. Parity Cannot Override the Gravity of the Offence

The Supreme Court stressed that in serious offences such as murder, courts must adopt heightened caution. Bail cannot be granted simply because one co-accused benefited earlier.

The Court also cited principles from Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025), which require examining:

• Gravity of the offence
• Likelihood of witness intimidation
• Possibility of tampering with evidence
• Criminal antecedents
• Nature of role played

None of these were evaluated by the High Court.

4. Parity Cannot Be Claimed When the Co-Accused’s Bail Is Itself Legally Defective

The Supreme Court noted that even assuming roles were similar, the bail of the co-accused had already been set aside. Therefore, the foundation for parity no longer existed.

This is a significant clarification: if the co-accused’s bail was wrongly granted, others cannot claim parity based on an erroneous order.

Comparative Judicial Understanding Across High Courts

To illustrate doctrinal consistency, the Supreme Court surveyed several High Court decisions:

Allahabad High Court — Nanha v. State of U.P. (1992)

• Parity is not the sole ground even in subsequent bail applications; courts must examine additional materials.

Delhi High Court — Harbhajan Singh v. State (2016)

• Parity requires identity of roles; judicial discretion must be exercised afresh.

Himachal Pradesh High Court — Abhay Gupta v. State of H.P. (2016)

• Parity is relevant but not determinative; courts must examine new developments.

Karnataka High Court — Narayanaswamy v. State of Karnataka (2017)

• Parity is desirable but not absolute; differing roles defeat parity.

Calcutta High Court — Subires Bhattacharya v. CBI (2024)

• Parity cannot rest on simplistic comparisons.
• By aligning its reasoning with these rulings, the Supreme Court affirmed a nationwide consensus: parity is a secondary and conditional ground—not a standalone right. 

Why the High Court’s Order Was Set Aside

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order suffered from:

• Lack of reasoning
• Failure to consider the accused’s individual role
• Erroneous reliance on parity
• Disregard for principles governing bail discretion
• Reliance on a bail order already quashed by the Supreme Court

The Court therefore cancelled Rajveer’s bail and directed him to surrender. It also remanded another co-accused Prince’s bail, for fresh consideration because the High Court order lacked reasons altogether. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant reaffirmation of principled bail jurisprudence in India. It clarifies that while judicial consistency is important, parity cannot become a shortcut to bail. Courts must evaluate each accused based on individual acts, specific roles, and contextual circumstances, especially in grave offences such as murder.

The decision also underscores the constitutional responsibility of courts to balance personal liberty with societal interests, ensuring that justice is neither delayed nor derailed. By insisting on scrutiny and reasoned orders, the Supreme Court seeks to restore confidence in the fairness and integrity of the bail process.

Ultimately, the ruling draws a clear line: equality in bail cannot be claimed without equality in culpability. Parity is a principle of fairness—not a legal entitlement. And unless the accused stands on a truly identical footing with a co-accused, bail cannot be granted solely on parity.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams