Parity Claim for Bail Negated Where Accused’s Specific Role in Fatal Assault Is Categorically Distinct.

The appellant challenged an order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bardoli, which denied him regular bail in connection with FIR No. 11214046250744 of 2025.

The case involves an incident arising from a dispute over tractor driving. The primary accused, Rahul (the appellant's son), allegedly assaulted the deceased with a spanner, causing a fatal head injury.

The appellant is accused of participating in the assault by hitting the deceased with a stick.

The victim initially lodged the FIR himself but succumbed to his injuries two days later, leading to the invocation of Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, considering his specific role in the fatal assault and the evidence on record.

2. Whether the principle of parity applies to the appellant when other co-accused have been released on bail but the roles attributed to them differ.

The court primarily applied Section 103(1) (Murder) and other relevant provisions of the BNS, and Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It relied on well-settled bail principles from Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, emphasizing the nature of accusations, gravity of the offense, and the severity of punishment.

The court further cited Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate regarding the impermissibility of a parity claim when roles are distinct.

Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, holding that the filing of a charge-sheet does not diminish the gravity of the allegations.

The court found that the FIR, lodged by the deceased before his death, acts as a dying declaration and carries significant weight.

It observed that the post-mortem report corroborated the prosecution's case, showing traumatic blunt injuries and fractures.

The court noted that the appellant was specifically identified by eyewitnesses (the deceased’s sons and one Parth) for actively assaulting the victim with a stick.

The court reasoned that because the trial had commenced and the appellant faced a serious charge of murder, there was a high risk of tampering with witnesses if he were released.

It distinguished the appellant's role from those on bail, asserting that the principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically.

The court held that the gravity of the offense, the strength of the prima facie evidence (including the dying declaration and eyewitness accounts), and the risk to the judicial process outweighed the appellant's claim to personal liberty.

The court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings on a day-to-day basis since the appellant is an under-trial prisoner.