Bail discretion and parity fail where serious criminal antecedents and distinct roles make the grant unsustainable.

Bail discretion must rest on relevant factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of the offence, prima facie material, risk of tampering, and the accused's antecedents. Where the accused is a history-sheeter facing multiple serious cases and the co-accused relied on for parity had a different role, parity fails and the bail order reflects non-application of mind. The note states that an order granting bail on such mistaken or irrelevant considerations is liable to be interfered with in appeal under Article 136 and was set aside as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's order granting bail could be sustained when the accused had serious criminal antecedents and the case for parity was not made out.

Analysis: Grant of bail requires a judicially sound exercise of discretion on relevant considerations, including the nature of accusation, severity of the offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence, prima facie material, and the accused's antecedents. Where the record shows that the accused is a history-sheeter facing multiple serious cases, and the allegations against him are distinct from those of the co-accused whose bail was relied upon for parity, the foundation of parity fails. An order granting bail on such a mistaken premise reflects non-application of mind and cannot be sustained in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The bail order was unsustainable and was rightly set aside; the appeal succeeded in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail granted on irrelevant or incorrect considerations, particularly where parity is wrongly invoked despite serious criminal antecedents and distinct roles, is liable to be interfered with as an arbitrary exercise of discretion.

---