DATE: 28/11/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N
Kotiswar Singh
FACTS:
The case arises out of an incident recorded
in Case Crime No. 0159 of 2024 at Police Station Hastinapur, Meerut. The
complaint was lodged by the appellant-complainant following a confrontation
with co-villagers Suresh Pal and his son Aditya. When the complainant’s father,
Sonveer, intervened to stop the escalation, he was threatened by them. On 28
June 2024, while the complainant and his parents were travelling to a field
belonging to one Ravindra, the accused persons namely, Suresh Pal, Rajveer (the
respondent-accused), Saurav, Aditya, Prince, and Bijendra, allegedly armed with
pistols, obstructed their path. It is alleged that Rajveer threatened the
complainant’s family, and thereafter, at the instigation of Suresh Pal, accused
Aditya shot Sonveer, causing a gunshot injury to his chest, leading to his death
at the spot.
Following registration of the FIR, Rajveer
was arrested and his applications for regular bail were twice rejected by the
Additional Sessions Judge, who noted the gravity of the offence and the
presence of ante-mortem firearm and lacerated injuries. Rajveer thereafter
approached the High Court, which granted him bail principally on the ground of
parity with co-accused Suresh Pal who had earlier been released. The High Court
also noted absence of criminal antecedents and duration of custody. However,
bail granted to co-accused Suresh Pal was subsequently set aside by the Supreme
Court, observing that the High Court had not applied correct legal principles.
The appellant has therefore challenged the order granting bail to Rajveer.
ISSUES:
The central question before the Court was
whether the High Court had erred in granting bail solely on the ground of
parity with co-accused persons, without independently examining the role,
conduct, and involvement of the respondent-accused in the alleged murder.
Specifically, the Court had to determine whether parity alone could justify
grant of bail, whether relevant considerations such as role in crime, gravity
of offence and supporting evidence were ignored, and whether the High Court’s
bail order, being non-speaking and unreasoned, required interference.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court set aside the bail
granted to respondent-accused Rajveer and directed him to surrender within two
weeks, holding that the High Court committed a legal error by granting bail
solely on the basis of parity. The Court held that the co-accused relied upon
for parity was himself no longer on bail, making the reasoning unsustainable.
In a connected appeal regarding co-accused Prince, the Court also set aside the
bail order and remanded the matter to the High Court to reconsider the
application afresh with proper reasoning.
The Court held that parity cannot be
treated as an automatic or sole ground for bail because parity requires
similarity not merely in involvement in the same offence but in role, position,
and degree of participation. Referring to its earlier decisions, the Court
reiterated that while consistency is desirable, parity applies only when
factual circumstances, degree of culpability, and evidentiary position are
identical. Here, the Court noted that Rajveer was not a mere bystander; he was
specifically alleged to have instigated accused Aditya to shoot the deceased,
which directly led to death. The role attributed to him was materially
different from the role of co-accused, who merely stood armed during the
incident. Thus, the High Court’s approach equating these roles was
fundamentally flawed.
The Supreme Court further held that bail
orders must reflect application of judicial mind by considering relevant
parameters such as gravity of offence, nature of allegations, likelihood of
influencing witnesses, and strength of prosecution material. Referring to
precedents such as Brijmani Devi, Ashok Dhankad, and others, the Court
clarified that an order bereft of reasons amounts to violation of principles of
natural justice. In this case, the High Court did not assess the seriousness of
the charge, the direct instigation attributed to Rajveer, the fatal consequence
of the act, or other relevant circumstances. Moreover, since bail of co-accused
Suresh Pal, relied upon as basis for parity was itself set aside by the Supreme
Court, the High Court’s order became wholly unsustainable. This lack of
independent judicial analysis warranted intervention, resulting in cancellation
of bail for Rajveer and remand of Prince’s bail plea.
ANALYSIS:
The case highlights the Supreme Court’s
consistent stance that bail cannot be granted merely by invoking the principle
of parity, particularly in serious offences involving direct allegations of
criminal participation. The High Court had granted bail to Rajveer solely by
comparing him with co-accused persons without independently evaluating his role
in the incident. The Supreme Court found this approach legally unsound because
parity presupposes similarity in role, degree of involvement, and evidentiary
circumstances. In this instance, Rajveer was alleged to have instigated the
firing that caused the death, which placed him in a more culpable position than
other co-accused. The Court also stressed that the High Court’s order lacked
reasoning and failed to consider essential bail parameters such as gravity of
offence, nature of allegations, and possibility of influencing witnesses.
Further, the Court’s intervention gained
greater significance because the co-accused whose bail was cited for parity
protection, Suresh Pal was himself no longer on bail, having been denied relief
in earlier Supreme Court proceedings. This rendered the High Court’s decision
not only factually flawed but legally untenable. By directing Rajveer’s
surrender and remanding Prince’s application for fresh evaluation, the Court
reiterated that judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised with
reasons that demonstrate application of mind. The ruling strengthens
jurisprudence on reasoned bail orders, especially in cases of homicide, and
reinforces that parity cannot be applied mechanically when factual roles
materially differ.
info@adhwaitha.com