[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Avula Kondaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18732
CRL.P No. 8523 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8523 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
AVULA KONDAIAH
S/O. AVULA SUBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT. 3-149-1144-1 LAKSHMISAGAR,
MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR,
ANDRA PRADESH - 517 001
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY K.N., ADVOCATE)
signed by
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY AND:
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BATLAHALLI.P.S.
REP: BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18732
CRL.P No. 8523 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL UNDER SEC.439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE IN
(CR.NO.16/2023) SPL.C.NO.35/2023 OF BATLAHALLI P.S. FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20(B) OF NDPS ACT 1985 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking his
enlargement on regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
for an offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic
Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985.
NC: 2026:KHC:18732
HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri. Narayanaswamy K.N., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned
Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent and have perused the
material on record.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner is accused No.2. The petitioner along with the
other accused gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.16/2023
for the aforesaid offence. The police conduct investigation and
file a charge sheet against the accused, which was pending
before the concerned Court as Spl.C.No.35/2023. Since the
petitioner was not available for trial at the relevant point in
time, the case was split as Spl.C.No.79/2023. Accused No.1
applies for a regular bail and Court of Session in terms of its
order dated 05.06.2023 enlarges accused No.1 on bail. The sole
reason that the bail was not granted to this petitioner was that
a sword of non-bailable warrant was hanging on his head, as he
was not available before the concerned Court at the relevant
point in time. With that being the only reason for not granting
bail, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the
ground of parity of accused No.1 being enlarged on bail. The
NC: 2026:KHC:18732
HC-KAR
Apex Court while discussing the law of grant of bail on parity in
the case of SAGAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1, has held
as follows:
".... .... ....
11. It is clear from the perusal of the above
factors that the High Court failed to consider all that was
relevant. On parity, it is necessary to refer
to Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. VishanbhaiHirabhai
Makwana(Koli) [(2021) 6 SCC 230]. This Court
observed that while utilizing parity as a ground for
bail, the same must focus on the role of the
accused and cannot be utilized solely because
another accused person was granted bail in
connection with the same offence, and neither can
this ground be claimed as a matter of right. [See
also: Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of
Enforcement [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486]; Sabita
Paul v. State of West Bengal [2024 SCC OnLine SC
374].
.... .... ....
13. In an attempt to clarify the position of
law qua parity as a ground, we may refer to certain
judgments of the High Court to appreciate whether
there is convergence or divergence of
opinion/understanding.
13.1. The Allahabad High Court in Nanha v. State
of U.P.[1992 SCC OnLine All 871], observed as under:--
24. My answer to the points referred to us is
that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting
bail even at the stage of second or third or
subsequent bail applications when the bail
applications of the co-accused whose bail
application had been earlier rejected are allowed
and co-accused is released on bail. Even then the
court has to satisfy itself that, on
consideration of more materials placed,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2584
NC: 2026:KHC:18732
HC-KAR
further developments in the investigations
or otherwise and other different
considerations, there are sufficient grounds
for releasing the applicant on bail. If an
examination of a given case, it transpires
that the case of the applicant before the
court is identically similar to the accused on
facts and circumstances who has been
bailed out, then the desirability of
consistency will require that such an
accused should be also released on bail. As
regards the second part of the referred question
my answer is that it is not at all necessary for an
accused to state in his application that the
application of a co-accused had been rejected
previously.
(emphasis supplied)
13.2. The Delhi High Court in Harbhajan
Singh v. State[2016 SCC OnLine Del 4920], while
holding that parity cannot be the sole ground for the
grant of bail, observed:
"15. ... In this regard, this Court thinks fit to
reiterate the settled principle that in a criminal
jurisprudence, every case stands on different
footings and no straightjacket formula can be
adopted in the facts of each case. No doubt, the
weight of judicial parity should be followed, but
on the other hand, this Court is of the conscious
opinion that the word 'parity' connotes a state
when a person is placed on the same footing as
of the other person. This court is also of the
opinion that that parity cannot be the sole
ground for granting bail in a case where the
bail applications of other co-accused whose
bail applications had been allowed and are
released on bail. It is purely a discretion of
the court. Before granting or refusing bail,
the court must satisfy itself after
considering the material placed on record
and further developments in the
investigations or otherwise and other
peculiar circumstances of each case, which
show that there are sufficient grounds for
releasing the applicant on bail If on
examination of any case, it transpires that the
case of the applicant before the court is
NC: 2026:KHC:18732
HC-KAR
identically similar to the accused on facts and
circumstances, who has been bailed out, then the
desirability of consistency will require that such
an accused should be also released on bail.
(emphasis supplied)
13.3. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Abhay
Gupta v. State of H.P. [2016 SCC OnLine HP 1758] held
that:
"It is more than settled that parity alone
cannot be the sole ground for granting of bail. It
is only one of the grounds for consideration of the
question of bail. There is no absolute hide bound
rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the
co-accused when another co-accused has been
granted bail. If on careful scrutiny in a given
case it transpires that case of the bail
petitioner is identically similar to the
accused and facts and circumstances of the
case who has been bailed out, then
desirability of consistency will require that
such an accused should also be released on
bail."
13.4. The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
in Shri Narayanaswamy v. State of Karnataka[2017 SCC
OnLine Kar 1066], speaking through Aravind Kumar J.,
(as he then was) observed as hereinbelow:
"24. The law of Parity would be applied in
granting bail to an accused, where the co-
accused has been granted bail on similar set of
circumstances. Law of Parity is a desirable rule
where the case of accused/petitioner is identical
with the co-accused, who is already enlarged on
bail. Simply because the co-accused has been
granted bail also cannot be the sole criteria for
granting bail to another accused if they are
standing on different footings.
25. Parity cannot be the sole ground for
granting bail and if on scrutiny and
examination of records in a given case it
transpires that the case of the petitioner
before the Court is identically similar to the
accused, who has already been granted bail,
then it would be desirable that petitioner
should also be enlarged on bail. However, if
NC: 2026:KHC:18732
HC-KAR
material placed by the prosecution and further
developments in the investigation unraveling
changed circumstances, this aspect also requires
to be taken into consideration and in
such circumstances the principle of Parity as an
universal application or a straight jacket formula
cannot be applied.
(emphasis supplied)
13.5. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Neeraj
alias Vikkysharma v. State of M.P.[2019 SCC OnLine MP
7023], held that parity cannot be the sole ground for
considering the prayer for bail, even at the stage of the
second or third application for bail. It was further
observed that "Failure of justice may be occasioned if
bail is granted to an accused on the basis of parity with
another co-accused whose bail order does not contain
any reason."
13.6. Once again, turning to the Delhi High
Court- in Pradeep v. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi)[2023
SCC OnLine Del 4307] it was held by a learned Single
Judge that the grant of bail to a co-accused in itself
does not grant other accused a ground for bail. Even
when parity as a ground is urged, the sum total of
circumstances is to be considered.
13.7. Recently, the Calcutta High Court
in Subires Bhattacharya v. CBI[2024 SCC OnLine Cal
11889] also took the same view in the following terms:
"30. Parity cannot be the sole ground for
granting bail even at the stage when the bail
application of a co-accused is allowed. The Court
has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of
more materials placed, further
developments in the investigations and
other different considerations, there are
sufficient grounds for releasing the
applicant on bail. In deciding the aspect of
parity, the role attached to the accused
persons, their position in relation to the
incident and to the victims is of utmost
importance. Court cannot proceed on the basis
of parity on a simplistic assessment, which again
cannot pass muster under the law."
NC: 2026:KHC:18732
HC-KAR
14. What flows from the above judgments, which
have been referred to, only to the limited extent
indicated above, is that the High Courts speak in one
voice that parity is not the sole ground on which bail can
be granted. That, undoubtedly, is the correct position in
law.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. There can be different roles
played - someone part of a large group, intending to
intimidate; an instigator of violence; someone who
throws hands at the other side, instigated by such
words spoken by another, someone who fired a weapon
or swung a machete - 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 the
other by the sheer size of the gathering, with another
who attempted to hack away at the opposer's limbs with
a weapon."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the judgment quoted supra holds that
albeit parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail to a
co-accused, the position or role of the co-accused would be a
determining factor for granting bail on the score of parity.
4. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, in my
considered view, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by
imposing stringent conditions.
NC: 2026:KHC:18732
HC-KAR
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The petitioner-accused No.2 shall be released on
bail in connection with Crime No.16/2023 of
Batlahalli Police Station pending on the file of the
Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chikkaballapura, for the aforesaid offence, subject
to the following conditions:
a. The petitioner shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties
for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
b. The petitioner shall not indulge in
tampering the prosecution witnesses or
hamper the investigation, either directly
or indirectly.
c. The petitioner shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court on all the future
hearing dates, unless exempted by the
court for any genuine cause.
d. The prosecution is at liberty to prefer an
application for cancellation of bail, if
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18732
HC-KAR
there is any violation of the aforesaid
conditions.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SJK
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6
CT:SG
