The Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, has ruled that the grant of bail to a co-accused does not automatically entitle another accused to bail on the ground of parity. Dismissing the second bail plea of prime accused Rajendra Prasad in a Goa murder case, the court held that parity cannot be applied as a mechanical mathematical formula and must instead be evaluated based on the specific role assigned to each accused in the factual matrix.
Background of the Case
The case arises from FIR No. 90 of 2023, registered on August 28, 2023, at Old Goa Police Station under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner, Rajendra Prasad, was arrested on August 29, 2023, and later named as Accused No. 1 in the chargesheet filed on November 23, 2023. He is currently facing trial in Sessions Case (302) No. 11 of 2023 before the District and Sessions Court, Merces, Tiswadi, North Goa, under Sections 342, 302, and 201 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
According to the prosecution, a pre-existing family and property dispute at their native village in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, led the petitioner and co-accused to conspire to eliminate the victim, Chandrika @ Gabbar Sahani. On August 23, 2023, the petitioner allegedly lured the victim to his rented residence in Porvorim, Goa, under the pretext of offering painting work. Thereafter, the petitioner and Ranajit Prasad (Accused No. 2) wrongfully confined the victim in a room and assaulted him with a wooden stick (danda). Joined by Akhilesh Kumar Sahani (Accused No. 3) and Rajkumar Prasad (Accused No. 4), the accused tied the unconscious victim to a heavy stone using an orange-coloured nylon rope and iron hooks, transported the body in a Maruti Swift car, and disposed of it in the Gaundalim river.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging an order dated April 8, 2026, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa, which had rejected his second application for bail.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of parity, as the chargesheet and counter-affidavit attributed a similar role to all four accused. She pointed out that the High Court had already granted bail to Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4 vide orders dated September 2, 2024, and April 8, 2026, respectively. Furthermore, she argued that there was no prima facie material against the petitioner, that inherent inconsistencies existed in the prosecution narrative, and that the petitioner had undergone prolonged incarceration of nearly three years without substantial progress in the trial.
Opposing the plea, Advocate Mr. Abhay Anturkar, representing the State of Goa, argued that the offence was premeditated and grave, with investigative material establishing the petitioner’s active involvement. He contended that parity was unavailable because the petitioner’s role was distinct and prominent compared to the co-accused who were released on bail. He added that releasing the petitioner during trial posed a risk of influencing sensitive witnesses known to him.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the trial was ongoing, with evidence recorded for only one of the sixty-two proposed prosecution witnesses.
Rejecting the argument on parity, the bench emphasized that individual roles must be evaluated carefully. The court observed:
“It is trite that grant of bail to one accused does not, ipso facto, constitute a ground for granting bail to another accused. Parity is not a mechanical mathematical formula; it must be assessed based on the specific role attributed to each accused in the factual matrix.”
Relying on previous rulings in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, Sagar v. State of U.P., and Rekha Sengar v. State of M.P., the court held that the petitioner could not claim bail on parity. Prima facie, the material on record revealed that the petitioner was the principal architect of the murder plan, whereas the co-accused granted bail acted merely as facilitators.
Addressing the contention regarding prolonged incarceration, the court stated:
“The mere fact of the petitioner having been incarcerated for nearly three years or the likelihood of the trial not concluding within a reasonable period would not by itself entitle him to be released on bail, given the gravity of the offence alleged and the possibility of the witnesses being influenced and the evidence being tampered with.”
Supreme Court Decision and Directions
While declining bail, the court recognized the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial and acknowledged the State’s concerns regarding vulnerable employee-witnesses. The Supreme Court encouraged the trial court to make sincere endeavors to record the testimonies of eight sensitive witnesses—PW-25 Sonu Sahani, PW-26 Biju Sahani, PW-29 Amarnath Maurya, PW-30 Shriram Tharu, PW-33 Santu Singh, PW-34 Ganesh Tharu, PW-36 Sahil Shinde, and PW-38 Mahabaleshwar Gouda—out of turn within one year from the date of communication of the order.
The bench granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum afresh for bail after the deposition of these eight witnesses is completed, or if it is not completed within the stipulated one-year period, provided he cooperates with the proceedings without causing delays.
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Goa & Anr.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9754 of 2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: August 18, 2026
