Yes. Parity with a co-accused is a valid and well-recognized ground for seeking bail. If a co-accused having a similar role, similar allegations, and comparable circumstances has already been granted bail, another accused may seek bail on the principle of parity. However, parity is not an absolute right, and the court will independently examine whether the accused is truly similarly situated.
What Is the Principle of Parity?
The principle of parity means that similarly placed accused persons should ordinarily receive similar treatment in matters relating to bail. The doctrine is based on the constitutional guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
If two accused persons are alleged to have played an identical role in the commission of the offence and one of them has been granted bail, the other accused may legitimately claim the same relief unless there are distinguishing circumstances.
Is Bail Automatic on the Ground of Parity?
No.
Grant of bail on the ground of parity is not automatic. The court must determine whether:
- The role of both accused is substantially identical.
- The allegations against them are similar.
- The evidence against them is comparable.
- Their criminal antecedents are similar.
- There are no distinguishing features justifying different treatment.
If the court finds material differences between the accused, parity may not be applicable.
What Factors Does the Court Compare?
While considering parity, courts generally examine:
1. Role of the Accused
The court compares the specific role assigned to each accused.
For example:
- Who was the principal offender?
- Who allegedly planned the offence?
- Who actually committed the act?
- Who merely assisted?
A person alleged to be the mastermind may not be entitled to parity with a person having a minor role.
2. Nature of Allegations
Parity is more likely where the allegations against both accused are identical or substantially similar.
3. Evidence Available
The court examines whether:
- Similar evidence exists against both accused.
- Recovery of incriminating material differs.
- Confessional statements or electronic evidence distinguish one accused from another.
4. Criminal Antecedents
If one accused has previous convictions or several pending criminal cases while the co-accused has a clean record, parity may not apply.
5. Conduct During Investigation
The court considers whether the accused:
- Cooperated with the investigation.
- Absconded.
- Violated earlier bail conditions.
- Attempted to influence witnesses.
Different conduct may justify different outcomes.
6. Stage of the Proceedings
The stage of investigation or trial may also be relevant. If significant developments have occurred after the co-accused was granted bail, the court may take those developments into account.
When Can the Court Refuse Bail Despite Parity?
The court may refuse bail if:
- The accused had a more serious role.
- Stronger evidence exists against the accused.
- The accused is a habitual offender.
- There is a greater likelihood of absconding.
- The accused has threatened witnesses.
- The accused has violated previous bail conditions.
- Recovery of weapons, money, or incriminating documents has been made exclusively from the accused.
Thus, parity cannot override significant factual differences.
Can Parity Be Claimed if the Earlier Bail Order Was Incorrect?
No.
Parity cannot be claimed to perpetuate an illegal or erroneous order.
If the court finds that the earlier bail order was passed by overlooking material facts or contrary to settled legal principles, it is not obliged to grant bail to another accused merely to maintain parity.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that Article 14 does not permit equality in illegality.
Does Parity Apply in Serious Offences?
Yes.
The principle of parity applies even in serious offences such as:
- Murder.
- Attempt to murder.
- Corruption.
- Economic offences.
- Organised crime.
- Conspiracy.
However, because of the gravity of such offences, courts carefully scrutinize whether the accused are genuinely similarly placed.
Important Supreme Court Judgments
1. Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court reiterated that consistency in bail decisions is important and emphasized that similarly situated accused should ordinarily receive similar treatment unless there are distinguishing circumstances.
2. Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Court held that parity cannot be applied mechanically. The role of the accused, criminal antecedents, and other relevant circumstances must be independently examined.
3. Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar
The Supreme Court observed that bail orders must reflect judicial application of mind and that parity should not be invoked where material distinctions exist between the accused.
Practical Tips for Claiming Parity
An accused seeking bail on the ground of parity should:
- Produce a copy of the co-accused’s bail order.
- Demonstrate that both accused have identical or substantially similar roles.
- Show that the evidence against both is comparable.
- Highlight the absence of distinguishing factors.
- Explain why different treatment would be unjustified.
Practical Tips for Opposing Parity
The prosecution or complainant may oppose parity by showing:
- The accused played a more significant role.
- Additional incriminating evidence exists against the accused.
- The accused has criminal antecedents.
- Recovery of incriminating material was made only from the accused.
- The accused is more likely to abscond or influence witnesses.
Conclusion
Yes, parity with a co-accused is a valid ground for seeking bail. Courts generally strive to ensure that similarly situated accused receive similar treatment in accordance with the constitutional principle of equality. However, parity is not an absolute or automatic right. Before granting bail, the court independently examines the role of the accused, the nature of the allegations, the evidence, criminal antecedents, conduct during the investigation, and other relevant factors. Where material differences exist, the court may legitimately refuse bail despite another co-accused having been granted the same relief.
Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.
Advocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)
Contact: 88271 22304