Grant of bail remains one of the most delicate exercises of judicial discretion in criminal law. Courts often encounter the argument of parity, where an accused seeks bail merely because a co-accused has already been granted the same relief.
In Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), the Supreme Court of India decisively clarified that parity is not a mechanical or automatic ground for granting bail.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a serious criminal case involving allegations of murder. The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one of the accused primarily on the basis that a co-accused had already been released.
The State challenged this order, arguing that:
The High Court relied solely on parity
The accused had a distinct and more serious role
The bail order lacked proper judicial reasoning
Key Issue Before the Supreme Court
Can bail be granted only because a co-accused has been granted bail, without examining the individual role and involvement of the accused?
What the Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court answered this question with clarity and caution.
- Parity Is Only a Consideration, Not a Right
Parity may guide judicial discretion, but it cannot replace independent judicial assessment. Each bail application must stand on its own facts.
- Role of the Accused Is Determinative
Parity applies only when:
The allegations
The nature of involvement
The degree of participation
are substantially similar. Different roles demand different treatment.
- Bail Orders Must Reflect Application of Mind
The Court disapproved of bail orders that merely replicate earlier decisions. Even brief orders must demonstrate:
Consideration of the accused’s role
Gravity of the offence
Impact on investigation and trial
- Serious Offences Require Heightened Scrutiny
In heinous crimes such as murder, courts must exercise greater caution, particularly where the accused is alleged to be a principal offender.
Outcome
The Supreme Court:
Set aside the High Court’s bail order
Directed the accused to surrender
Reaffirmed that bail jurisprudence cannot operate on a copy-paste approach
Key Takeaways
✔ Parity is not an automatic entitlement
✔ Individual culpability matters most
✔ Mechanical bail orders are legally unsustainable
✔ Judicial discretion must be reasoned and contextual
Noteable Points
Strengthens consistency in bail jurisprudence
Prevents misuse of parity arguments
Serves as a guiding precedent for High Courts
Conclusion : – Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh reinforces a fundamental principle of criminal justice:
⚖️ Equality before law does not mean identical treatment without context.
Bail decisions must balance liberty with responsibility—guided by reason, not comparison alone.