Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh has set aside orders of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to two co-accused in a village murder case, holding that bail cannot be allowed solely on the ground of parity without examining the individual role of each accused in the alleged offence. The case arises from the fatal shooting of the complainant’s father during an alleged armed assault by a group of villagers. The Court cancelled the bail of one co-accused and directed him to surrender within two weeks, while remitting the bail plea of another co-accused to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of the gravity of the charges and his specific role.

The case arises from a verbal altercation between the complainant and two co-villagers, during which the complainant’s father intervened and was allegedly threatened. On the date of the incident, while the complainant and his parents were travelling to a nearby field, a group of six co-villagers allegedly intercepted them, armed with pistols, blocked their path, and one member of the group is stated to have instigated another to shoot the complainant’s father, who sustained a gunshot injury to the chest and died at the spot. An FIR was registered at Police Station Hastinapur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Also Read: Letter Of Intent (LoI) A Promise In Embryo; No Vested Right Until Preconditions Met : Supreme Court

Following arrest, the trial court rejected the bail plea of one accused, referring to the seriousness of the offence and ante-mortem injuries, including a gunshot wound and lacerated wounds. Subsequently, the High Court granted bail to a co-accused, noting absence of criminal antecedents, his employment status, and lack of material suggesting flight risk or repetition of the offence, as well as the prosecution’s inability to explain certain injuries. On this basis, and on the contention that his role was similar, another accused sought and obtained bail from the High Court, despite opposition from the complainant and the State, while the bail plea of the alleged shooter was later rejected. The complainant then approached the Supreme Court challenging these bail orders, raising issues concerning the use of parity as a ground for bail.

The Court first identified the central question: “The question that arises for consideration is whether, as done by the High Court in the impugned order, parity with the co-accused persons can be the sole reason for granting bail.”

On the doctrine of parity, the Bench recorded: “On parity, it is necessary to refer to Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana(Koli) and Anr. … This Court observed that while utilizing parity as a ground for bail, the same must focus on the role of the accused and cannot be utilized solely because another accused person was granted bail in connection with the same offence, and neither can this ground be claimed as a matter of right.”

It then stated: “The High Court appears, plainly, to have erroneously granted bail to the accused-respondent on the sole ground of parity which it has misunderstood as a tool of direct application as opposed to parity being focused on the role played by the accused and not the thread of the same offence being the only common factor between the accused persons.”

Explaining how parity must account for differing roles, the Court held: “There can be different roles played - someone part of a large group, intending to intimidate; an instigator of violence; someone who throws hands at the other side, instigated by such words spoken by another, someone who fired a weapon or swung a machete - parity of these people will be with those who have performed similar acts, and not with someone who was part of the group to intimidate the other by the sheer size of the gathering, with another who attempted to hack away at the opposer’s limbs with a weapon.”

Relying on Brijmani Devi, the Court cited: “At the same time, a balance would have to be struck between the nature of the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge against the accused.”

The Court directed: “In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed, and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The Respondent-accused Rajveer is directed to surrender before the concerned Court within two weeks from the date of this judgment. It stands clarified here that any observations made hereinabove are only for the adjudication of this appeal against the grant of bail, and nothing further. It shall not be construed as a comment on the merits of the matter.”

Also Read: Criminal Revision Before High Court Maintainable But Direct Challenge To Magistrate’s Order Reserved For Exceptional Cases, Sessions Court To Be Approached First: Jharkhand High Court

“Clearly, the High Court, in the impugned order has been unable to assign reasons, even briefly. As such, the order impugned is set aside and in that view of the matter, the question of bail to the respondent-accused Prince is remanded to the High Court to be considered afresh, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the role of the instant accused and all other relevant factors, as delineated time and again in various judgments of this Court.”

“Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to dispatch a copy of this judgment to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, for necessary action and compliance. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Anshul Sharma, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Chahar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. Rohit Swarup, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Ashwina Lakra, Adv. Ms. Arushi Singh, Adv.

Case Title: Sagar v. State of UP & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1370
Case Number: Cr.A @SLP (Crl) Nos. 8865-8866 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh