Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged

"When there is no specific overt act as to actual robbing by accused No.2 and the persons who robbed the society and also threatened CWs.1 to 5 in a gun point... have been granted bail... on the ground of parity alone, the present petitioner is to be enlarged on bail," Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 5, 2026, held that an accused is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity when the alleged "mastermind" and co-accused with more severe roles have already been granted relief.

A bench of Justice V. Srishananda observed that where the petitioner was assigned a secondary role and main offenders who used firearms were already enlarged, the petitioner cannot be denied bail.

The petitioner, Yoshwa Rajendra (Accused No. 2), was arrested in connection with a robbery at a co-operative society. He was charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act for allegedly acting as a lookout and assisting in collecting stolen ornaments. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS (Section 439 CrPC) after his previous applications were unsuccessful.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner could claim bail on the ground of parity with other co-accused who had already been granted relief. The court was also called upon to determine if the petitioner’s residence in Maharashtra constituted a sufficient ground to deny bail due to potential flight risk.

Court Analyzes Secondary Role Of Petitioner In Alleged Robbery

The court examined the specific allegations against the petitioner as recorded in the charge sheet. It was noted that the role assigned to the petitioner was that of keeping a watch in front of the society to prevent the public from entering while the robbery was in progress. The prosecution also alleged that he purchased a gunny bag to load the stolen ornaments.

Parity With Mastermind and Armed Accused

Justice Srishananda highlighted that the "mastermind" of the entire incident, Accused No. 1, had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench. Furthermore, Accused No. 3, who allegedly pointed a firearm at witnesses to silence them during the robbery, was also enlarged on bail. The court found it inconsistent to keep the petitioner in custody when the primary offenders were free.

"When there is no specific overt act as to actual robbing by accused No.2 and the persons who robbed the society and also threatened... in a gun point... have been granted bail... on the ground of parity alone, the present petitioner is to be enlarged on bail."

Addressing State’s Apprehension Regarding Flight Risk

The High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail request, contending that since the petitioner is a resident of Maharashtra, there was a high possibility of him absconding. The court, however, held that such apprehensions can be mitigated through stringent conditions rather than the denial of liberty. It proposed a multi-layered surety system to ensure the petitioner's presence during the trial.

Requirement Of Local And Cash Sureties To Secure Attendance

The bench opined that the prosecution's concerns could be met by ordering three separate sureties. This included one cash security, one local surety, and one regular surety. The court emphasized that such measures strike a balance between the individual's right to bail and the state's interest in ensuring the trial's progression.

Final Directions and Conditions of Bail

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court allowed the criminal petition. The petitioner was ordered to be released on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with three sureties. The court strictly prohibited the petitioner from threatening witnesses or leaving the jurisdictions of Maharashtra and Karnataka without prior permission.

The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that parity is a vital consideration in bail jurisprudence, especially when the main perpetrators are no longer in custody. By imposing a cash security requirement, the court demonstrated a pragmatic approach to handling interstate accused while upholding the principle of equality before the law.

Date of Decision: 05 May 2026