Recently, the Supreme Court examined a bail dispute arising from a village confrontation that escalated into a fatal shooting. A seemingly ordinary quarrel grew into an armed clash, leading to allegations of instigation, murder, and questionable reliance on parity in bail orders. The matter came before the Court after the High Court’s approach to bail raised serious concerns about whether the principle of parity had been used correctly.
Brief Facts:
The case began with a verbal clash between the complainant and two co-villagers, which soon turned hostile. When the complainant’s father intervened to defuse the tension, threats were allegedly issued. On the day of the incident, while the complainant and his parents were walking toward a nearby field, a group of accused persons allegedly intercepted them. They were armed with pistols and, according to the FIR, blocked the way. One accused threatened that the complainant’s father would be taught a lesson for objecting earlier. Another was then allegedly instigated to fire at him. The bullet struck his chest, causing his death on the spot. Subsequent arrests and multiple bail applications followed. While the trial court repeatedly rejected bail, the High Court granted it primarily on the ground that one co-accused had already been enlarged on bail, leading to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the Appellant argued that the High Court had granted bail without examining the seriousness of the allegations or the specific role attributed to the accused. According to the Appellant, the Respondent was the one who allegedly instigated the shooter to fire at the deceased, a fact clearly reflected in the FIR but completely ignored by the High Court. The counsel further contended that the High Court’s order was virtually a non-speaking one, overlooking the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC, the findings of the trial court regarding ante-mortem injuries, and the consistent rejection of bail by the Sessions Court. Crucially, the Appellant emphasised that parity was wrongly invoked because the co-accused whose bail was used as the basis for comparison had already had his bail cancelled by the Supreme Court itself. In such circumstances, the appellant maintained that the High Court’s reliance on parity not only lacked legal foundation but also disregarded established principles governing bail.
Contentions of the Respondents:
On the other hand, the counsel for the Respondent supported the High Court’s view by asserting that he stood on an equal footing with the co-accused who had earlier been granted bail. He submitted that he had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody for a considerable period since June 2024, which, he argued, weighed in favour of his release. The Respondent also contended that he was unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence and that well-settled principles such as bail being the rule and jail the exception favoured his case. The Respondent therefore maintained that the High Court had correctly evaluated the circumstances and that the bail order did not warrant interference.
Observation of the Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had granted bail without undertaking the essential exercise of examining the distinct role attributed to the accused. The Court emphasised that the allegation of instigation, specifically that the respondent allegedly asked the shooter to fire at the deceased, was a crucial aspect that could not be brushed aside. Referring to the principles laid down in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Makwana, the Court reiterated that parity is never to be applied mechanically but only after assessing whether the role and involvement of the accused truly match that of the co-accused. Against this backdrop, the Court noted verbatim that the High Court had “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,” disregarding the seriousness of the accusation and the material that had weighed with the Sessions Court while repeatedly rejecting bail.
The Court then turned to the broader jurisprudence on bail, relying on Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi to reiterate that any order granting bail must reflect “application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors.” In the present case, however, the High Court’s order was found devoid of reasoning, with no discussion on the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC, the alleged overt act of instigation, the existence of ante-mortem injuries, or the earlier rejection of bail by the trial court. The Supreme Court described the High Court’s approach as a misapplication of the concept of parity, observing verbatim that it had “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,” despite the clear distinction between the person who merely formed part of the group and the person who allegedly provoked the fatal shot.
Clarifying the true meaning of parity, the Court stated that the word denotes “position,” which in criminal law refers to an accused person’s specific role in the crime. The Bench observed verbatim that “Position means what the person whose application is being weighed, his position in crime, i.e., his role etc.,” and stressed that “the roles of these two people at the time of the shooting of the deceased cannot be said to be the same.” Since the co-accused on whose bail the High Court relied had already had his own bail set aside by the Supreme Court, the parity argument collapsed entirely. Thus, the High Court’s order was held to be contrary to settled law and unsustainable.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail order, holding that bail could not have been granted solely on parity when the respondent’s alleged role was distinct and more serious. The accused was directed to surrender within two weeks. The Court further clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of bail and would not influence the trial.
Case Title: Sagar V. State Of Up & Anr.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8865 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Counsel for the Appellant: AOR Praveen Swarup, Adv. Anshul Sharma, Adv. Krishan Kumar, Adv. Sakshi Chahar, Adv. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Rohit Swarup, Adv. Ravi Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Vikas Bansal, AOR Vijendra Singh, Adv. Ashwina Lakra, Adv. Arushi Singh
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
