The Supreme Court has set aside two bail orders granted by the Allahabad High Court in a murder case, emphasising that parity cannot be applied mechanically and must be assessed strictly with reference to the role played by each accused, not merely their common involvement in the same offence. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the High Court was unable to assign reasons for granting bail
The case stemmed from the June 2024 incident in Hastinapur, where the complainant’s father was allegedly shot dead after an earlier verbal altercation with co-villagers. According to the FIR, the accused instigated the co-accused to shoot the deceased, leading to his death on the spot. The accused had earlier been denied bail twice by the Additional Sessions Judge, who relied on the seriousness of the offence. However, the High Court granted him bail on the basis that his father had already been released on bail and he had no criminal antecedents. Applying the concept of parity, he was granted bail, prompting the complainant-appellant to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s bail to the accused erroneous as it was granted solely on the ground of parity with his father, whose own bail was later quashed by the Supreme Court on March 3, 2025. The Bench emphasised that parity requires an assessment of position in the crime; the instigator cannot be equated with one who merely stood in the mob.
The Court underscored that the High Court failed to consider critical factors such as the gravity of the offence, the nature of the role, the potential influence on witnesses, and the guidelines laid down in prior precedents. Citing multiple High Courts and Supreme Court rulings, it reaffirmed that “every case must be evaluated on its own circumstances” and that parity is only one factor, not a standalone ground.
In the connected appeal relating to the co-accused, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had issued a reasonless order, merely citing precedents without applying them. While quashing the bail order, the Court remanded his bail application to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing it to evaluate the accused’s role, the gravity of allegations, and settled legal principles.
The Bench directed the accused to surrender within two weeks. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Allahabad High Court for compliance.
Appearances
Petitioner: Mr. Anshul Sharma, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Chahar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. Sukhamrit Singh, Adv. Ms. Geetha Rani, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
Respondents: Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv.
