Bail parity cannot be claimed where the accused’s alleged motive and involvement materially distinguish her case.

The applicant, Savita Sagar, wife of the deceased Nannu Mal, sought bail in connection with FIR No. 369 of 2024, registered on 6 November 2024 at Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar, for an offence under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). The FIR was lodged by Vedpal, the applicant’s stepson, alleging the involvement of the applicant and co-accused Aatif. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both accused under Sections 103(1) read with 3(5) of the BNS.

The applicant contended that she had been falsely implicated; that the prosecution case was based primarily on confessional statements and circumstantial evidence; that there was no eyewitness; and that no recovery had been made from her. The alleged recoveries, including the deceased’s motorcycle and articles allegedly used in the crime, were attributed to co-accused Aatif.

The applicant further relied on the fact that Aatif had already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench on 27 November 2025 and claimed parity with him. She also asserted that she had no criminal antecedents, had undergone prolonged incarceration, and that custodial interrogation was no longer required after filing of the charge-sheet.

The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicant had an illicit relationship with Aatif and had conspired with him to eliminate her husband, who was perceived as an obstacle to their relationship. The State also relied upon the recovery of a towel and scarf from the co-accused, allegedly used in the commission of the offence.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a murder case under Section 103(1) of the BNS, having regard to the nature of the accusation, the alleged motive, the circumstantial evidence, and the material collected during investigation?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity because co-accused Aatif had already been granted bail?

3. Whether the absence of recovery from the applicant, the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of an eyewitness, and the applicant’s claimed prolonged incarceration justified her release on bail?

The Court considered the accusation under Section 103(1) of the BNS, concerning culpable homicide amounting to murder, read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, which attributes liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

The Court also considered the constitutional submission concerning the requirement of informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, although it did not separately adjudicate that contention.

The governing principle applied was that bail is discretionary and must be determined on an assessment of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the apparent role and motive of the accused, and the overall circumstances of the case.

Parity with a co-accused is not automatic and depends upon comparable roles and circumstances.

The Court treated the applicant’s alleged illicit relationship with Aatif as a prima facie motive for the killing of her husband and considered the allegation that the deceased was an obstacle to that relationship.

On that basis, the Court held that the applicant’s alleged involvement in the killing, in connivance with Aatif, could not be ruled out at the bail stage.

Although the Court noted the absence of recovery from the applicant and the fact that Aatif had been granted bail, it concluded that the applicant’s position was materially distinguishable because she was the deceased’s wife and was alleged to have had a strong motive and intention to eliminate him.

Accordingly, the Court declined to extend the benefit of parity. The Court did not accept the applicant’s reliance on the absence of an eyewitness, the circumstantial nature of the case, the filing of the charge-sheet, or the alleged duration of incarceration as sufficient to outweigh the prosecution’s prima facie case at that stage.

It held that, considering the applicant’s alleged motive, her purported relationship with the co-accused, and the allegation that she conspired in the killing of her husband, she did not deserve bail or the benefit of parity with the co-accused who had already been released.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial without being influenced by the observations made in the bail order.