Bail Cannot be Granted Solely on Parity

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh in the case of Sagar v. State of UP and Anr. (2025) set aside an Allahabad High Court order that granted bail on the ground of parity, holding that the High Court failed to consider the specific role attributed to the accused in the alleged offence.

What was the Background of Sagar v. State of UP and Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The prosecution alleged that an altercation escalated into fatal violence when a group of accused persons blocked the complainant's family's way. 
• During the confrontation, Respondent No. 2 (Rajveer) allegedly instigated co-accused Aditya to shoot the deceased. 
• Aditya's bail application was rejected by the court. 
• The High Court had earlier granted bail to Suresh Pal (Aditya's father), but the Supreme Court subsequently overturned this decision for lack of proper reasoning. 
• Relying solely on the bail granted to Suresh Pal, the High Court later extended bail to Respondent No. 2 (Rajveer, the alleged instigator) and Prince, another co-accused. 
• The High Court granted bail without substantive analysis of their individual roles in the crime. 
• The complainant filed a plea against the grant of bail on the ground of parity alone.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that parity as a ground for bail 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. 
• The Court emphasized that parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 
• Relying on Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and Anr., (2021) the Court emphasized that parity requires similarity in roles and circumstances, not merely that accused persons face the same charges. 
• The Court observed that different roles can be played in a crime: someone part of a large group intending to intimidate, an instigator of violence, someone who physically attacks, someone who fired a weapon or used a deadly weapon. 
• The Court stated that parity of these people will be with those who have performed similar acts, not with someone whose role was significantly different. 
• The Court noted that the High Court erroneously granted bail on the sole ground of parity, misunderstanding it as a tool of direct application rather than one focused on the role played by the accused. 
• The Court applied principles from Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and Anr., (2022)  which emphasized that while detailed reasoning is not warranted in a bail order, the order should not be devoid of any reasoning. 
• The Court set aside the impugned bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court.

Factors to be Assessed While Granting Bail 

According to Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and Anr.(2022), the following facts must be independently assessed while granting bail: 

1. Nature of allegations made against the accused. 
2. Severity of punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction. 
3. Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by the accused. 
4. Tampering of evidence. 
5. Frivolity in the case of the prosecution. 
6. Criminal antecedents of the accused. 
7. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge against the accused.

What is Bail? 

About:  

• Bail is the conditional release of an accused person before trial, fundamentally rooted in the presumption of innocence. It serves as a crucial mechanism ensuring that individuals are not unjustly detained while awaiting judicial proceedings. The primary objective is to guarantee that the accused does not abscond from justice, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses during the pendency of the case. 

Legal Provisions: 

• The legal framework for bail in India is now governed by Chapter 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973. This comprehensive legislation establishes the procedural guidelines and judicial powers concerning bail matters. 
• The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) established the fundamental principle that "the basic rule is bail, not jail," emphasising that bail is a right and imprisonment is an exception. This landmark judgment reinforced the constitutional philosophy that liberty is the norm and detention is the exception. 

Types and Powers: 

• Bail provisions are categorised based on the nature of offences. Bailable offences guarantee an automatic right to bail under Section 436 of the former CrPC, while non-bailable offences vest discretionary powers in courts and designated police officers as per Section 437. 
• High Courts and Sessions Courts possess special powers under Section 483 of BNSS to grant, modify, or cancel bail. They can direct the release of any accused person in custody, impose specific conditions, or modify existing bail terms. 
• Anticipatory bail, covered under Section 482 of BNSS, allows individuals who reasonably fear arrest for non-bailable offences to seek pre-arrest protection from High Courts or Sessions Courts. 

Bail Conditions: 

• Courts typically impose several conditions while granting bail. The accused must furnish a personal bond with sureties to ensure appearance during trial proceedings. Standard conditions include prohibitions against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or contacting victims. Courts may also impose specific restrictions relevant to the case circumstances, such as surrendering passports or periodic reporting to police stations. 
• Default or mandatory bail provisions under Section 187 of BNSS ensure that accused persons are granted bail if investigations exceed prescribed time limits, making judicial intervention automatic rather than discretionary.