The Supreme Court has overturned an Allahabad High Court order that granted bail to an accused solely on the ground of parity, holding that such an approach ignored the specific acts attributed to the accused in the case.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh noted that reliance on parity must be grounded in a proper assessment of the accused’s individual involvement, and cannot be treated as an automatic right simply because a co-accused has obtained bail. The bench was hearing a challenge by the complainant against the High Court’s decision.

According to the prosecution, a confrontation escalated when several accused persons obstructed the complainant’s family. It was alleged that Respondent No. 2–Rajveer provoked co-accused Aditya to fire at the deceased. Notably, Aditya’s bail plea was rejected. Earlier, the High Court had granted bail to Aditya’s father, Suresh Pal—but the Supreme Court later reversed that order for lack of adequate reasoning.

Despite that, the High Court subsequently extended bail to Rajveer, the alleged instigator, and another accused, Prince, relying solely on the bail order of Suresh Pal and without independent scrutiny of their respective roles.

Justice Karol, authoring the judgment, relied on Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230 to stress that parity must involve equivalence in roles and surrounding circumstances—not merely similarity in charges. The Court illustrated that accused may have varying degrees of involvement: being present as part of a crowd, provoking violence, physically attacking, or firing a weapon—all of which demand distinct evaluation.

The Court further observed that the High Court had misapplied the concept of parity as an automatic ground for bail, rather than considering whether the accused played a role comparable to those previously released.

Referring to Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497, the bench reiterated that even though detailed reasoning is not needed in bail orders, courts must still assess the following factors:

a. the nature of allegations;
b. severity of potential punishment;
c. likelihood of witness intimidation;
d. possibility of tampering with evidence;
e. frivolity of prosecution charges;
f. criminal antecedents; and
g. prima facie satisfaction regarding involvement.

Given Rajveer’s alleged role as the instigator—a role distinct from that of Suresh Pal—the Supreme Court held that granting him bail on parity was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and Rajveer was directed to surrender.

The appeals were accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (and connected matter)