Bail granted on parity where the accused shared an identical role and comparable circumstances with the released co-accused.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 636/2023 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh for offences under Sections 120B, 395, 412, 397 and 34 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that, on 30 September 2023, three persons robbed the complainant by snatching his money bag after a country-made pistol was brandished.

The applicant was allegedly driving the motorcycle on which the other two accused were pillion riders.

The applicant had remained in custody since 16 October 2023, and charges had not yet been framed.

He claimed parity with co-accused Sagar, who had been granted bail by the High Court on 13 July 2026.

The State acknowledged parity, but relied upon the applicant’s previous involvements, recovery of part of the robbed amount and a mobile phone purchased from the proceeds, as well as the fact that the motorcycle was stolen.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of his prolonged custody, the fact that charges had not been framed, and the alleged role attributed to him in the robbery.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Sagar, who had a similar alleged role and had already been granted bail.

3. Whether the applicant’s previous involvements and the alleged recoveries justified denying bail despite such parity.

The Court applied the statutory framework governing the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 395, 412, 397 and 34 IPC.

The established bail principle that similarly situated co-accused should ordinarily receive similar treatment unless distinguishing circumstances justify a different outcome.

The Court also considered relevant bail factors, including the applicant’s period of custody, the stage of the trial, the specific role attributed to him, prior criminal involvement, and the existence of recoveries.

The Court found that the country-made pistol had allegedly been brandished by co-accused Vinod, and not by the applicant or Sagar.

Since the applicant’s alleged role was that of the motorcycle driver and Sagar had a similar role, the State itself accepted that parity existed between them.

Although the applicant had previous involvements, he was on bail in those cases.

The Court further held that the recoveries relied upon by the State did not distinguish the applicant from Sagar, since part of the robbed amount had also been recovered from Sagar.

Considering these circumstances, along with the applicant’s custody since 16 October 2023 and the fact that charges had not yet been framed, the Court held that parity could not be denied.

The Court directed the applicant’s release on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

The applicant was specifically directed not to contact any prosecution witness in any manner.

The accompanying applications were also disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent.