The Supreme Court has set aside the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to two accused in a murder case, ruling that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail and that the “position” of an accused refers to their specific role in the crime, not merely their involvement in the same offense.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment in Sagar v. State of UP & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8865-8866 of 2025), overturning the relief granted to respondents Rajveer and Prince.
Legal Issue and Outcome
The core legal issue before the Apex Court was whether parity with co-accused persons can serve as the sole reason for granting bail, and whether a High Court can grant bail without assigning reasons. The Supreme Court answered in the negative, setting aside the impugned orders. The Court directed accused Rajveer to surrender within two weeks and remanded the bail application of accused Prince to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Background of the Case
The proceedings stemmed from First Information Report (FIR) No. 0159, lodged at Police Station Hastinapur on June 28, 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the judgment, the incident originated from a verbal dispute between the appellant-complainant, Sagar, and co-villagers Suresh Pal and his son Aditya. The complainant’s father, Sonveer, had opposed the escalation of the dispute. On the day of the incident, while the complainant and his parents were proceeding to a plot of land, they were allegedly blocked by the accused persons—Suresh Pal, Rajveer, Saurav, Aditya, Prince, and Bijendra—who were armed with pistols.
The FIR alleged that accused Rajveer threatened the victims, stating they would be “taught a lesson.” Subsequently, Suresh Pal instigated accused Aditya to shoot Sonveer. Aditya allegedly fired a bullet hitting Sonveer in the chest, resulting in his death.
Arguments and High Court Proceedings
The accused Rajveer’s bail application had been rejected twice by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, citing the serious nature of the crime and the ante mortem injuries. However, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Rajveer on January 3, 2025, primarily on the ground of parity with co-accused Suresh Pal, who had been granted bail on November 22, 2024. The High Court noted that Rajveer had no criminal history and held he was “entitled to get bail on the basis of equality.”
Regarding the co-accused Prince, the High Court granted bail on December 18, 2024, referring to Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil and Manish Sisodia, but without detailing specific reasons for the grant.
Court’s Analysis
On Parity (Accused Rajveer) The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s reliance on parity as the sole ground for relief. Justice Karol, writing for the Bench, observed that while bail is the rule and jail the exception, this does not imply granting relief without regard to the circumstances.
The Court clarified the legal concept of parity, stating:
“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.”
The Bench distinguished the roles of the accused, noting that Rajveer was the “instigator of the moment,” whereas the co-accused Suresh Pal, with whom parity was drawn, was a member of the mob. The Court held:
“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.”
The Court also referenced its order dated March 3, 2025, in Criminal Appeal No. 1200 of 2025, wherein it had already set aside the bail granted to the co-accused Suresh Pal.
On Unreasoned Orders (Accused Prince) Regarding the bail granted to Prince, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s order failed to disclose any reason. The Bench observed that a mere reference to previous judgments “is not followed by any justification as to what in these cases… applies to the instant case.”
Citing the precedent in Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, the Court reiterated:
“Thus, while elaborating reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail, at the same time 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.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals with the following directions:
- Re: Rajveer: The order granting bail was set aside. The respondent-accused was directed to surrender before the concerned Court within two weeks.
- Re: Prince: The impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the High Court to be considered afresh, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the specific role of the accused.
The Court clarified that its observations were strictly for the adjudication of the appeal against the grant of bail and should not be construed as a comment on the merits of the trial.
