This Supreme Court judgment establishes that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail; it must focus on the accused’s specific role. Bail orders must contain reasons, reflecting application of mind to relevant factors like offence gravity. Granting bail solely based on another accused’s release, without considering role distinction, renders the order legally unsustainable.
Facts Of The Case:
The factual matrix of this case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on 22nd April 2024, alleging the murder of the deceased, Sonveer. According to the complainant, Sonveer, along with his brothers Sagar (the appellant) and Pramod, were en route to their fields on a motorcycle when they were confronted by a group of six individuals, including the respondents Rajveer and Prince, and a co-accused, Suresh Pal. The accused, armed with pistols and a country-made pistol, blocked their path. The respondent-accused Rajveer specifically threatened the group, stating they would be taught a lesson for their opposition. Subsequently, the co-accused Suresh Pal instigated another individual, Aditya, to shoot Sonveer. Acting on this instigation, Aditya fired a gunshot that struck the deceased on the chest, resulting in his death at the scene. Following the registration of the FIR, the accused individuals were arrested. Rajveer’s initial bail applications were rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, who cited the serious nature of the crime, particularly the gunshot wound. The High Court, however, granted bail to Rajveer primarily on the ground of parity, noting that his father, Suresh Pal, had been granted bail. This decision was challenged by the appellant-complainant, leading to the present proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the registration of First Information Report No. 159 of 2024 on April 22, 2024, following the murder of Sonveer. The respondent-accused, Rajveer, was arrested in connection with the case and subsequently filed applications for regular bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut. These applications were rejected on at least two occasions, with the second rejection order dated September 12, 2024, specifically noting the presence of ante-mortem injuries, including a fatal gunshot wound, as grounds for denying bail. Aggrieved by this rejection, Rajveer challenged the order before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46196 of 2024. The High Court, by its impugned order, granted bail to Rajveer primarily on the ground of parity, observing that his father and co-accused, Suresh Pal, had been released on bail by the same court on November 22, 2024. Dissatisfied with this decision, the original complainant, Sagar, approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8865 of 2025. Notably, prior to the adjudication of this appeal, the Supreme Court had already intervened in the matter concerning Suresh Pal, setting aside his bail grant by order dated March 3, 2025, in Criminal Appeal No. 1200 of 2025. Additionally, the third accused, Aditya, had his bail application rejected by the High Court on August 7, 2025. The Supreme Court heard the present appeal challenging Rajveer’s bail, along with a connected appeal challenging the bail granted to another co-accused, Prince, ultimately disposing of both matters through this common judgment on November 28,2025.<｜end▁of▁thinking｜>The procedural history of this case commenced with the registration of FIR No. 159 of 2024 on April 22, 2024, for the murder of Sonveer. The respondent-accused, Rajveer, was arrested and filed successive regular bail applications before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut. These applications were rejected on at least two occasions, most recently on September 12, 2024, with the trial court citing the serious nature of the crime and the presence of a fatal gunshot wound as grounds for denial. Aggrieved, Rajveer challenged the second rejection order before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46196 of 2024. The High Court, by the impugned order, granted him bail primarily on the ground of parity, noting that his father and co-accused, Suresh Pal, had been released on bail by the same court on November 22, 2024. The appellant-complainant, Sagar, then approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8865 of 2025. Critically, prior to this appeal, the Supreme Court had already set aside the bail granted to Suresh Pal on March 3, 2025, in Criminal Appeal No. 1200 of 2025, for lack of reasoning. Additionally, the third accused, Aditya, had his bail application rejected by the High Court on August 7, 2025. The Supreme Court heard the present appeal challenging Rajveer’s bail, along with a connected appeal (SLP (Crl.) No. 8866 of 2025) challenging the bail granted to another co-accused, Prince, ultimately disposing of both matters through this common judgment on November 28, 2025.
READ ALSO:Moratorium Doesn’t Protect Inaction: Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Defaulting Developer’s Agreement
Court Observation:
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court delivered a decisive judgment allowing both criminal appeals and setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court that had granted bail to the respondent-accused, Rajveer and Prince. In the first appeal concerning Rajveer, the Court held that the High Court had erroneously granted bail solely on the ground of parity with his father, Suresh Pal, without considering the distinct roles played by each accused in the commission of the offense. The Court directed Rajveer to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks from the date of the judgment. In the connected appeal concerning Prince, the Court found that the High Court’s order granting bail was entirely bereft of reasoning, merely citing precedents without explaining their applicability to the case. The Court set aside this order as well and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application, with a specific direction to evaluate the gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and all other relevant factors as delineated in various judgments of the Supreme Court. The Court further directed the Registrar (Judicial) to dispatch a copy of this judgment to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court for necessary action and compliance. Importantly, the Court clarified that any observations made in the judgment were solely for the purpose of adjudicating the appeals against the grant of bail and should not be construed as comments on the merits of the underlying criminal case. All pending applications were disposed of in terms of this judgment.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sagar v. State of UP & Anr. with connected appeal Citation: 2025 INSC 1370 Criminal Appeal No.: (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8865 of 2025) Date of Judgment: November 28, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Download The Judgement Here