SC: PARITY ALONE NOT ENOUGH FOR BAIL; COURTS MUST EXAMINE EACH ACCUSED’S ROLE:

The Supreme Court has overturned an order of the Allahabad High Court that granted bail to two accused solely on the ground of parity, holding that the High Court failed to undertake a proper examination of their individual roles in the alleged offence. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh delivered the ruling while considering a plea filed by the complainant challenging the bail granted to Respondent No. 2, Rajveer, and another co-accused. The Court emphasized that the principle of parity cannot be used as an automatic or exclusive ground for bail. Instead, courts must carefully assess the specific role attributed to each accused and determine whether the circumstances genuinely warrant comparison.

The case stemmed from an incident in which an altercation escalated into fatal violence. According to the prosecution, a group of accused individuals blocked the complainant family's path, leading to a confrontation. During this incident, Respondent No. 2, Rajveer, allegedly instigated co-accused Aditya to shoot the deceased. While Aditya’s bail application had been rejected due to the serious nature of his alleged conduct, the High Court had earlier granted bail to his father, Suresh Pal. The Supreme Court, however, had later set aside Suresh Pal’s bail on the grounds that the High Court had failed to provide adequate reasoning.

Despite this, the High Court subsequently relied solely on the earlier, now-overturned bail order of Suresh Pal to grant bail to Rajveer, he alleged instigator, and to another accused, Prince. In doing so, it did not meaningfully consider their individual participation in the crime or whether their circumstances were comparable to those of the previously bailed accused. The Supreme Court found this approach fundamentally flawed.

Justice Karol, writing for the Bench, relied on the Court’s decision in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (2021), which clarifies that parity in bail matters requires genuine similarity in roles, conduct, and circumstances, rather than merely facing the same charges or being involved in the same incident. The judgment explained that in group offences, different individuals may play significantly different roles such as intimidation, instigation, physical assault, or the actual act of firing a weapon and that parity can only apply between accused persons whose conduct and intent are substantially similar. The Court noted that the High Court appeared to have misapplied the concept of parity by treating it as a direct and automatic tool instead of examining the distinct role attributed to each accused.

The Bench also referred to Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar (2022), where the Court held that although bail orders need not be elaborate, they must contain sufficient reasoning to show that relevant factors were considered. These factors include the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the potential punishment if convicted, the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, the strength of the prosecution’s case, criminal antecedents, and whether there is a prima facie case supporting the charges. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that Rajveer’s alleged role as the instigator was materially different from that of Suresh Pal. Since the High Court had not analyzed these distinctions, the bail order was unsustainable. The Court therefore set aside the bail granted to Respondent No. 2 and directed him to surrender. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.