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

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

Whether the court must release accused on bail on the ground of parity?

A judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity even where the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused contains reasons, if the same has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle and ignores to take into consideration the relevant factors essential for granting bail.-

4. If it appears that a bail order has been passed in favour of an accused on the basis of wrong or incorrect documents it is open to any Judge to initiate action for cancellation of bail."

17. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is apparent that parity cannot become the sole criteria to grant bail and if the bail granted to similarly placed co-accused persons without assigning any reasons then on the basis of such bail orders merely on the ground of parity, the bail application should not be allowed and parity can only be persuasive in nature and cannot be binding.

 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24208 of 2022

Applicant :- Manish

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Coram: Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

Order Date :- 22.6.2022

Print Page

Whether court should consider the role of the accused in crime if he is claiming bail on the ground of parity?

 In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana  2021 (6) SCC 230 , a two judge Bench of this Court of which one of us (Justice DY Chandrachud) was a part, has held that the High Court while granting bail must focus on the role of the accused in deciding the aspect of parity. This Court observed:

“26.…The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law.”

14. The High Court ought to have had due regard to the seriousness and gravity of the crime. The deceased was employed with the Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi. The first respondent is an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Jhalawar. The material which has emerged during the course of investigation cannot simply be ignored or glossed over (as the High Court has done). The first respondent himself being an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Jhalawar, the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and of the witnesses being suborned cannot be discounted. At this stage, when the Court is called upon to evaluate whether a case for the grant of bail has been made out, it is inappropriate to enter upon matters which would form the subject of the trial when evidence is adduced by the prosecution. Bail was granted to the co-accused Anita Meena primarily and substantially on the ground that she had a child of eleven months with her in jail. This cannot be the basis to a claim of parity on the part of the first respondent. The first respondent cannot claim parity with the co-accused since the allegations in the FIR and the material that has emerged from the investigation indicate that a major role has been attributed to him in the murder of the deceased.

15. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was in error in allowing the application for bail. The consideration that twenty-five witnesses out of seventy-six witnesses had been examined must equally be weighed with the seriousness of the crime, the role attributed to the first respondent and the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with if the first respondent were to remain on bail during the course of the trial. In this backdrop, it was wholly inappropriate for the High Court to proceed on the surmise that the police had “developed a case” that Ketamine was administered, after four months of the incident.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 1089 of 2021

Shri Mahadev Meena  Vs  Raveen Rathore And Another 

Author: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Dated: September 27, 2021.

Print Page

When accused is not entitled to get bail on the ground of parity?

1) In the case of Salim Vs. State of U.P. 2003 ALL. L. J. 625, this Court has held that

parity can not be the sole ground for bail.

Again in the case of Zubair Vs. State of U.P. 2005(52) ACC 205, this Court

observed that there is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to

the co-accused, where another co-accused has been granted bail. In view of the aforesaid

discussion, we are of the considered opinion that parity cannot be the sole ground for

granting bail.”

2)  In the present case, the offence committed is of serious nature. It is

double murder, which would inflict severe punishment, in case of the

applicant's conviction. There was indiscriminate firing and the fire arm

injuries were sustained by the deceased Netrapal and Pratap on the vital parts

of the body as per the post mortem report. The witnesses, including the

informant-the injured witness, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have named the

applicant. There is recovery of fire arm of 315 bore from the possession of the

applicant as per the recovery memo. There are prima facie and reasonable

grounds to believe the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the

offence. The applicant has criminal antecedent. The trial has also commenced

in which PW-1 has been examined. Considering in totality the facts of this case, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I do not find

it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Delivered on 23.7.2020

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2554 of 2019

 Gajendra Singh  Vs State of U.P.

Coram:  Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.

Print Page

Whether court should release history-sheeter on bail on ground of parity?

This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless
sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal
antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the
High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter
involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced
hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be
retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature
and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be
regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and
lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in
an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert
while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large
and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion
judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2015
(@ SLP(Crl) No. 1596 OF 2015)
Neeru Yadav ... Appellant
 Versus
State of U.P. and Anr. ... Respondents
Dated:September 29, 2015
Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page

Whether history-sheeter can be released on bail on ground of parity even in serious offence?

 This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless
sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal
antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the
High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter
involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced
hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be
retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature
and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be
regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and
lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in
an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert
while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large
and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion
judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2015
(@ SLP(Crl) No. 1596 OF 2015)
Neeru Yadav ... Appellant
 Versus
State of U.P. and Anr. ... Respondents
Dated;September 29, 2015
Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page