Parity Alone Not Enough to Justify Bail in Murder Cases: Supreme Court Quashes Bail Orders for Co-Accused in Brutal Killing

“Grant of Bail Requires Judicial Application of Mind — Not a Mechanical Reference to ‘Parity’”, In a landmark judgment addressing the misuse of the principle of "parity" in bail decisions, the Supreme Court of India set aside two separate orders of the Allahabad High Court which had granted bail to accused Rajveer and Prince in a murder case. Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh firmly held that “parity” cannot be the sole ground for granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious offences like murder under Section 302 IPC.

The Court ruled that the High Court’s orders granting bail were devoid of judicial reasoning, and failed to evaluate the role of each accused, the gravity of the offence, and the settled jurisprudence around bail. Observing that the principle of parity must relate to the similarity of role and not merely to co-accusation, the Apex Court set aside the bail granted to Rajveer, directing him to surrender within two weeks, and remanded the matter of Prince to the High Court for fresh consideration.

“Parity Is Not a Blank Cheque — Role and Culpability Must Be Analysed Independently”

The appeal arose from Case Crime No. 0159 of 2024 registered at P.S. Hastinapur, Meerut, involving the cold-blooded murder of Sonveer, who was shot dead allegedly on the instigation of accused Rajveer, following a dispute that originated from a verbal altercation involving the complainant and co-accused Suresh Pal. According to the FIR, the accused persons — including Rajveer, Suresh Pal, Aditya, Prince, and others — intercepted the complainant's family and threatened them, whereupon Rajveer instigated Aditya to shoot the deceased.

Rajveer’s bail application had been rejected twice by the Sessions Court, citing the presence of ante mortem gunshot and lacerated wounds, and the seriousness of the charge under Section 302 IPC. However, the High Court granted him bail on 3 January 2025, relying solely on the ground that his co-accused Suresh Pal had already been granted bail earlier on 22 November 2024, and that Rajveer had no criminal history.

The Supreme Court expressed its deep concern with the High Court’s approach, observing:

“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... In essence, however, parity with his father was the only ground to grant the respondent-accused bail.”

The Court had already set aside Suresh Pal’s bail in an earlier order dated 3 March 2025, where it found that the High Court had failed to assign any meaningful reasoning, and merely noted that the accused was not likely to flee justice or repeat the offence.

“Bail Orders Cannot Be Bereft of Reason — Parity Does Not Mean Identical Treatment Without Role Analysis”

Justice Karol, writing for the Bench, stressed that bail must be granted after applying a judicial mind to relevant factors, including the role of the accused, gravity of the offence, and potential impact on the trial, referring extensively to prior judgments such as Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690) and Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230.

The Court observed:

“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.”

On examining the factual matrix, the Court found that Rajveer played a direct and more aggravated role by instigating the shooter, and could not be equated with Suresh Pal, who was merely part of an armed group. The Bench categorically held:

“The roles of these two people at the time of the shooting of the deceased cannot be said to be the same... consideration of bail, on parity, is misplaced.”

Importantly, the Court underscored that ‘parity’ means equality of position, not merely equality of involvement, explaining:

“Position means what the person whose application is being weighed, his position in crime, i.e., his role etc. 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.”

“Judicial Consensus Across High Courts: Parity Is Not an Absolute Ground”

The judgment undertakes an extensive comparative survey of decisions from Allahabad, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Calcutta High Courts, all of which uniformly hold that parity cannot be the sole basis for bail.

In particular, the Court relied upon the Allahabad High Court's pronouncement in Nanha v. State of U.P. (1992 SCC OnLine All 871), which observed:

“Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third applications... Even then the court has to satisfy itself... that there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail.”

Likewise, the Delhi High Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State (2016 SCC OnLine Del 4920) had held:

“The word ‘parity’ connotes a state when a person is placed on the same footing... Before granting bail, the court must satisfy itself after considering the material placed on record and further developments in the investigations.”

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach ignored this consistent judicial position, and instead adopted a mechanical reliance on the principle of parity, without assessing individual culpability.

“Non-Speaking Bail Orders Violate Natural Justice” – Matter of Prince Sent Back to High Court

In the connected appeal concerning co-accused Prince, the High Court had granted bail on 18 December 2024, again without recording any substantive reasons, merely citing judgments like Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Manish Sisodia v. CBI.

The Supreme Court found that:

“The impugned order of the High Court... does not disclose any reason whatsoever which weighed with the Court in granting bail.”

Citing Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497, the Bench reiterated that:

“While elaborating reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail... an order dehors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. It would be only a non-speaking order which is an instance of violation of principles of natural justice.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the bail granted to Prince, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of the accused’s role, the gravity of the offence, and the established legal standards.

“Grant of Bail Must Balance Liberty With the Integrity of Criminal Justice”

Concluding the judgment, the Bench directed Rajveer to surrender within two weeks, clarifying that the observations made are limited to the adjudication of the present bail matter and will not affect the trial on merits.

The judgment reaffirms a crucial principle of criminal bail jurisprudence: Liberty is precious, but justice demands that it be balanced with judicial discipline, especially in serious crimes. Parity is not a rubber stamp, and must be grounded in role-based assessment, not casual comparison.

Date of decision: 28 November 2025