Appeal
Appeal against granting bail High Court
2. The appellant-complainant is aggrieved by an order granting bail in connection with Case Crime No. 0159 P.S. Hastinapur, dated 28th June, 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506, Indian Penal Code, 18601, to one Rajveer by order dated 3rd January 2025 in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 44876 of 2024 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Facts
3. A perusal of the First Information Report reveals that the genesis of the instant proceedings was a verbal spat between the appellant-complainant and one Suresh Pal and his son Aditya, who were his co-villagers. The former’s father, Sonveer, opposed the escalation of the dispute, resulting in threats from the latter. On the day of lodging of the FIR, while the appellant/complainant and his parents were, for matters unrelated to the accused, on their way to the land of one Ravindra, then allegedly, the accused persons namely Suresh Pal, Rajveer, Saurav, Aditya, Prince, and Bijendra, armed with pistols came forward to block their way and prevent them from proceeding further. The respondent-accused Rajveer came forward and threatened them to the effect that they would all, particularly Sonveer, be taught a lesson for opposing them. Suresh Pal, then instigated the accused Aditya to shoot Sonveer, which he did, and the bullet hit him on the chest below the shoulder, making him fall to the ground and meet his end.
Accused in the FIR was arrested
4. Consequent to the FIR, accused Rajveer was arrested. The record speaks about his applications for regular bail being rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut on at least two occasions. It is the second order of rejection dated 12th September 2024, which was challenged before the High Court and resulted in the impugned order. The reasoning given by the Additional Sessions Judge, in rejecting the bail application, was the presence of ante mortem injuries resulting in, more particularly, the gunshot wound and two lacerated wounds. It was observed that the nature of the crime of which the accused had been charged is serious and, in these circumstances, bail had to be rejected.
6. The only two observations on the merit of the bail application are that the respondent-accused has no criminal antecedent(s) and that his father had been released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 22nd November 2024 in Misc. Bail Application No. 36116 of 2024. In essence, however, parity with his father was the only ground to grant the respondent-accused bail.
High Court released accused on bail reasoning prosecution did not present circumstance suggesting accused flee from justice
7. The reasons given by the High Court in releasing accused Suresh Pal on bail was that the prosecution could not present any circumstance suggestive of him fleeing from justice or creating further trouble by repeating the offences that he has been accused of. The learned Judge also took note of the ‘strong alibi’ of him being a class-IV employee at BSA Office, Meerut along with inability of the prosecution to explain the presence of lacerated wounds.
Parity with the co-accused persons can /be the sole reason for granting bail
10. 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. Bail has often been stated to be the rule, and jail, the exception. This cannot be emphasized enough. At the same time, this, however, does not mean that the relief of bail is to be granted without due regard to the circumstances involved in the alleged offence for which the accused person has been arrested. In this regard, it has to be noted that a Court, while granting bail, has to consider a number of aspects. Judgments too many to count, delivered by this Court have delineated the relevant considerations to be kept in mind. A recent reiteration thereof was in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.3 The relevant extracts thereof are as under :-
“19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court.
[See: Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra) ; Jaibunisha v. Meherban and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu].
(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime;
(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and
(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above.”
11. It is clear from the perusal of the above factors that the High Court failed to consider all that was relevant. 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. [See also: Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement; Sabita Paul v. State of West Bengal and Anr.]
Granting bail on the sole ground of Parity is not permissible
12. 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. On this count alone we can set aside the impugned judgment and order. However, we propose not to do so and proceed to delve further.
14. What flows from the above judgments, which have been referred to, only to the limited extent indicated above, is that the High Courts speak in one voice that parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted. That, undoubtedly, is the correct position in law. The word ‘parity’ is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “equality, especially of pay or position.” When weighing an application on parity, it is ‘position’ that is the clincher. The requirement of ‘position’ is not met only by involvement in the same offence. Position means what the person whose application is being weighed, his position in crime, i.e., his role etc. 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.
In this case the accused/appellant is the original conveyor of threat and the roles of two accused cannot be said to be the same
15. In this case, the respondent-accused was the instigator of the moment, asking accused Aditya to shoot Sonveer. Suresh Pal, was a member of the mob yielding a weapon, as per the FIR. He had been the original conveyor of the threat at the time of the original altercation/ verbal spat. The roles of these two people at the time of the shooting of the deceased cannot be said to be the same, even though they may be holding a common intention of causing harm to the other side. In that view of the matter, consideration of bail, on parity, is misplaced. That apart, there remains no parity to be weighed since Suresh Pal, too, we assume, as a consequence of our order, is behind bars.
Conclusion
High Court’s order directing the release of appellant is set aside
16. 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.
Judgment cited or quoted or referred
- Nanha Putra Nabha Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1993 Criminal Law Journal 938)
- Paras Ram Bishnoi v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (MANU/SCOR/22410/2021)
- Satinder Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. (2022 INSC 690)
- Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2025 SCC Online SC 1690)
- Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra)
- Jaibunisha v. Meherban and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu
- Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana(Koli) and Anr. ((2021) 6 SCC 230)
- Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (2023 SCC Online SC 1486)
- Sabita Paul v. State of West Bengal and Anr. (2024 SCC Online SC 374)
- Nanha v. State of U.P. (1992 SCC OnLine All 871)
- Harbhajan Singh v. State (2016 SCC OnLine Del 4920)
- Abhay Gupta v. State of H.P. (2016 SCC OnLine HP 1758)
- Shri Narayanaswamy v. State of Karnataka (2017 SCC OnLine Kar 1066)
- Neeraj alias Vikkysharma v. State of M.P. (2019 SCC OnLine MP 7023)
- Pradeep v. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) (2023 SCC OnLine Del 4307)
- Subires Bhattacharya v. CBI (2024 SCC OnLine Cal 11889)
- Manish Sisodia v. CBI ((2024) 12 SCC 691)
- Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and Anr. ((2022) 4 SCC 497)
Acts and Sections
- Act Involved: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to as “IPC” in the judgment).
- Section 147: Punishment for rioting.
- Section 148: Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.
- Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
- Section 302: Punishment for murder.
- Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
Party
Sagar vs. State of U.P. & Anr - Criminal Appeal 5074 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 8865-8866 of 2025 - 2025 INSC 1370 - November 28, 2025 - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
Author’s note
What is meant by Parity? A simple explanation
"Parity" in bail means that if more than one accused is named in the FIR/Final report and one is granted bail, the co-accused with the same role, allegations, and circumstances may also request relief. This is known as the "principle/doctrine of parity seeking," which is based on Article 14 of the Indian Constitution's fundamental rights. There is no such Doctrine or Principle evolved through Latin Maxims, but an innovation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India based on Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Reference to judgment
15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner [Neeru Yadav versus State of U.P. and Anr - Criminal Appeal No.1272 Of 2015 (@ SLP(Crl) No. 1596 Of 2015 - September 29, 2015)
Kindly note that in Neeru Yadav’s case or in the present Judgment Hon’ble Supreme did not observe that ‘Principle of Parity’ shall be a ground in bail cases, but shall be an additional ground.
_Ramprakash Rajagopal, Advocate, Tamilnadu.
