Bail parity is not automatic where evidence supports the applicant’s active role.

The applicant sought regular bail in an FIR arising from a shooting on 16 June 2024.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and others fired at the informant’s brother and another person, causing injuries, and that a third person, Deepak Badola, was later found dead from firearm injuries.

The applicant was arrested on 18 June 2024; the chargesheet alleged offences under Sections 302, 307, 201 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 3/25/27 of the Arms Act

The applicant relied on, among other grounds, the absence of a specific role, lack of trial progress, more than two years’ custody, and bail granted to co-accused.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s alleged active role, firearm recovery, statements and criminal antecedents

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail, having regard to the alleged role, evidence, criminal antecedents and circumstances of the offence

2. Whether delay in the trial, the applicant’s period of custody and bail granted to co-accused justified release on parity or otherwise

The chargesheet invoked Sections 302, 307, 201 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 3/25/27 of the Arms Act

The judgment does not cite a specific bail statute, precedent or articulated test.

It assesses the bail request by considering the alleged seriousness and planned nature of the crime, the applicant’s alleged role and supporting material, criminal antecedents, parity with co-accused, and the progress of the trial

The applicant’s Article 22 contention concerning communication of the grounds of arrest was raised, but the judgment does not separately determine it

The Court considered the applicant’s custody, the limited progress of the trial and the bail orders granted to other accused, but found these factors insufficient to warrant release.

It noted the alleged active role in causing firearm injuries to two injured persons and one deceased person, the firearm recovery attributed to the applicant and a co-accused, statements concerning the incident, and evidence of firing at police while fleeing

The Court declined parity because it found no deliberation on the co-accused’s roles in the orders granting them bail, and also considered the applicant’s disclosed criminal antecedents

It directed the Trial Court to make all possible efforts to expedite the trial, preferably completing it within nine months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, and directed the Registry to send the order to the Trial Court for compliance.