Supreme Court: Bail cannot be granted solely on parity; specific role of each accused must be examined

The Supreme Court has ruled that parity with a co-accused cannot by itself justify granting bail, and courts must evaluate the distinct role of each accused before deciding bail applications. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside bail orders granted by the Allahabad High Court to Rajveer and Prince in a murder case involving the shooting of Sonveer.

The High Court had granted bail to Rajveer mainly because his father and co-accused, Suresh Pal, was previously granted bail. The Supreme Court held that this reasoning was flawed because the roles attributed to them were not identical. According to the FIR, Rajveer allegedly instigated the shooting by directing another accused, Aditya, to fire at the victim, while Suresh Pal was part of an armed mob issuing threats.

The Court clarified that parity requires assessment of similar roles and conduct, not merely involvement in the same offence. It highlighted that different accused may have different levels of participation, such as instigation, firing, or threatening, and bail consistency applies only when the roles are truly comparable.

The Court also found the High Court’s bail order for co-accused Prince to be unsupported by reasoning, and referred to the Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar decision, holding that a non-speaking bail order violates natural justice.

The Supreme Court ordered Rajveer to surrender within two weeks and remanded Prince’s bail plea to the High Court for reconsideration. It noted that its observations concern only the bail stage and do not reflect on the merits of the case.

Case: Sagar v. State of UP & Anr. [Cr.A @ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8865–8866 of 2025]