Parity supports bail when similarly placed co-accused have been released.

A case was registered against the appellant and others in Crime No. 560 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(2), 109(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution stated that the appellant had absconded, an absconding charge sheet had been filed, and a non-bailable warrant had issued.

After obtaining a direction from the High Court, the appellant surrendered on 1 September 2026; the trial court dismissed his bail application, noting that the warrant had been pending since 10 April 2026 and that he had not explained his delay in surrendering.

The appellant appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

The investigation was complete, the case had been taken on file, and the other co-accused had been granted bail.

1. Whether the appellant should be granted bail notwithstanding his prior abscondence and the pending non-bailable warrant, given that the other co-accused had been granted bail.

2. Whether the trial court’s refusal of bail should be set aside and bail granted subject to conditions.

Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides for an appeal against an order of the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court.

In considering bail, the Court treated parity as a relevant principle: where accused persons are similarly placed, the grant of bail to co-accused should be considered in deciding whether to deny bail to the remaining accused.

The High Court acknowledged that the appellant had absconded and had failed to surrender while the non-bailable warrant was pending, circumstances that the trial court had relied on in refusing bail.

However, the investigation was complete, the case had been taken on file, and all other accused had been released on bail. The Court concluded that, in those circumstances, denying bail to the appellant alone would be unfair and that parity supported granting bail, subject to stringent conditions.

The appellant was ordered released on bail on executing a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for like sums, submitting identity and address documents, and filing an undertaking not to engage in future offences.

He must report to the trial court daily at 10:30 a.m., except on days when his appearance is required there; the police may seek cancellation of bail if he violates any condition.