Parity in bail matters requires consistent treatment of similarly placed accused and respect for prior High Court orders.

Bail under Section 439 CrPC may be granted on parity where accused persons stand on an identical footing and no distinguishing circumstance is shown. The text notes that injury reports did not disclose any sharp-edged injury despite an allegation that one accused carried a knife, and that a co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court. It also states that subordinate courts should consider and follow the High Court's earlier bail order in the same case when dealing with similarly placed accused, in line with judicial discipline. On these facts, bail was allowed and release was ordered on furnishing the directed bonds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of parity with a similarly situated co-accused and whether the rejection order overlooked the High Court's earlier bail order in the same case.

Analysis: The petitioners and the co-accused were found to stand on an identical footing. The injury reports did not disclose any sharp-edged injury despite an allegation that one petitioner was armed with a knife. The co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court, and the subsequent rejection by the Sessions Court did not refer to that order. In bail matters, concurrent jurisdiction exists between the Sessions Court and the High Court, and parity must ordinarily be maintained unless distinguishing features or special circumstances are shown. Judicial discipline also requires subordinate courts to consider and follow the High Court's order in the same case when dealing with similarly placed co-accused.

Conclusion: The bail application was allowed and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail on furnishing the directed bonds.

---