Supreme court: When the person accused of economic offence is not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity?

  Though the observations made in some of the above cases were in the context of heinous offences, which is not the case presently, we may note that the value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their 'person' but would also extend to the quality of their life, including their economic well-being. In offences of a pecuniary nature, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-earned monies by conmen, who make it their life's pursuit to exploit and feast upon the gullibility of others, the aforestated factors must necessarily be weighed while dealing with the alleged offenders' pleas for grant of bail. {Para 19}

20. In the case on hand, the investigation against Respondent No. 1, as is borne out by the counter affidavit filed by the State, clearly demonstrates that he is a habitual offender. The number of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake IDs and the deliberate changes of identity, including his father's name, clearly manifest his nefarious intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them.

21. Further, the fact that Respondent No. 1 was granted bail earlier but chose to indulge in the same activities once again, resulting in the registration of multiple FIRs over the years, demonstrates that he is a career criminal and a menace to society. The impugned order reflects that his past antecedents were not even taken into consideration. Similarly, his conduct in the context of the pending case was not noted. Having secured bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, Respondent No. 1 chose to abscond, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, which also brought to light the fact that his surety was not to be found.

22. In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have blindly extended the parity principle to him without considering the particular and distinctive features of his individual case. Given the fact that Respondent No. 1 has not turned over a new leaf, despite the indulgence shown by grant of bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, as evidenced by the FIRs registered against him over the years, we are of the opinion that letting him loose on society would only pose a risk and hazard to others.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2026 

Decided On: 17.02.2026

Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 161, MANU/SC/0164/2026

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The court should not grant bail to accused only on the ground of parity Without Assessing Accused's Specific Role

 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. {Para 30}

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."3 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.

15. In this case, the Respondent-Accused was the instigator of the moment, asking Accused Aditya to shoot Sonveer. Suresh Pal, was a member of the mob yielding a weapon, as per the FIR. He had been the original conveyor of the threat at the time of the original altercation/ verbal spat. 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. That apart, there remains no parity to be weighed since Suresh Pal, too, we assume, as a consequence of our order, is behind bars.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 5074 of 2025

Decided On: 28.11.2025

Sagar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: Sagar vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (28.11.2025 - SC) : MANU/SC/1597/2025

Print Page

Delhi HC : Under which circumstances the court should not release an accused on bail on the ground of parity?

The plea of parity advanced on behalf of the Applicant, by drawing reference to the grant of bail to co-accused Rahul Gupta @ Tyagi and Amar @ Kanha, also does not persuade this Court. The distinction in their roles is both apparent and material. While the co-accused are alleged to have merely restrained the deceased, the Applicant is attributed with the direct and fatal act of stabbing him. Furthermore, the orders granting bail to co-accused Rahul Gupta @ Tyagi and Amar @ Kanha, were premised on the fact that the eyewitnesses had not supported the Prosecution’s case during trial. While this circumstance may have weighed in favour of the co-accused at the stage of their bail applications, it is pertinent to note that no recovery of any incriminating material was effected from them. In contrast, the Applicant has led to the recovery of the knife alleged to have been used in the offence, as well as blood-stained clothes, both of which, as per the FSL report, have been linked to the deceased. Therefore, the considerations which extended to the co-accused, cannot enure to the benefit of the Applicant. The principle of parity, therefore, finds no application in the present case. {Para 8}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 2471/2025

ASHU @ ATTA . Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Author: SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

Pronounced on: 19th August, 2025.

Print Page