Parity Cannot Be the Sole Ground for Bail: Supreme Court Rejects Unreasoned Bail Orders

While hearing the criminal appeal arising from from bail granted by the Allahbad High Court on the grounds of parity, the Supreme Court examined the principal of parity in granting of bails.

The Case stemmed from a verbal spat that escalated and lead to the appellant's father death when he was shot on the chest by the Respondents/accused, Rajveer. The appellant challenged the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had granted bail to the respondent-accused, Rajveer and Co-accused Prince, on serious charges including, Section 302 IPC, without showing any reason for granting of such relieve relief, however, the sole reason for 'Ground of Parity' was mentioned by the High Court since the co-accussed Suresh Pal was released on bail in the same case.

Observations of Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court opined that the High Court had erroneously granted bail to the co-accused based solely on parity, failing to consider other relevant factors, particularly the gravity of the offence. The Court also held that parity can never be the sole ground for releasing an accused person. Citing various precedents, the judgment clarified that while using parity as a ground, the court must strictly focus on the role of the accused, and the relief cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely because another accused secured bail in the same offence.

In the context of parity, the Apex Court stressed that 'position' is the clincher, which must relate to the role played in the crime—for example, distinguishing between an instigator, a weapon wielder, and someone merely present in a group. Applying this principle to the facts, the Apex Court noted that Rajveer was the instigator of the moment, who asked co-accused Aditya to shoot the deceased, a role that was distinct from that of Suresh Pal. Since the original basis for parity (Suresh Pal's bail) had already been nullified by the Supreme Court, there remained no parity to be weighed.

The Supreme Court noted that it had already set aside the bail granted to Suresh Pal, observing at that time that the High Court had failed to assign any reason for granting bail in a case involving allegations of murder. Similarly, regarding co-accused Prince, the Court found that the High Court's order was also non-speaking, failing to any reason whatsoever which weighed with the court in granting the relief.

Furthermore, addressing the principles guiding bail, the Supreme Court emphasized that an order granting bail must reflect an application of mind and assessment of all relevant factors. Relying on Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, it reiterated that while elaborate reasons are not required, an order dehors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in the grant of bail and amounts to a non-speaking order, which the prosecution or informant has the right to assail.

Thus, Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to Rajveer, directing his surrender, and remanded the matter concerning Prince back to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing the court to keep in view the gravity of the offense and the role of the accused.

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL & JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH.