Parity in bail is permissible only with identical roles; non-speaking bail orders require interference or remand.

Parity with a co-accused is a legitimate consideration in bail decisions but cannot serve as the sole ground; parity applies only where the accused's role and position in the offence are identically similar to the co-accused, and courts must assess the individual's role and other relevant factors. An order granting bail that fails to record any reasons or demonstrate application of mind is a non-speaking order and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, the impugned High Court bail orders were vacated: one accused directed to surrender and another matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with settled bail principles.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether parity with a co-accused can be the sole ground for granting bail; (ii) Whether an order granting bail that does not disclose reasons (non-speaking order) can be sustained or requires interference/remand.

Issue (i): Whether parity alone, based on co-accused having been granted bail in the same offence, is a valid and sufficient ground for granting bail to another accused.

Analysis: The Court reviewed precedent and principles that parity is a permissible consideration but must focus on the accused's position and role in the crime rather than mere participation in the same offence. Authorities emphasise that parity operates where the case and role of the accused are identically similar to the co-accused granted bail; it cannot be applied as a straightjacket or as a matter of right. The High Court's order granting bail on parity without assessing the respondent's specific role and other relevant factors therefore failed to apply the correct legal standard.

Conclusion: Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail; parity must be grounded in similarity of role and position in the offence. (Conclusion in favour of Appellant)

Issue (ii): Whether an order granting bail that does not record reasons or reflect application of mind is sustainable.

Analysis: The Court noted that while elaborate reasons are not always required at the initial stage, an order bereft of any relevant reasons or application of mind amounts to a non-speaking order susceptible to challenge. Where the High Court failed to articulate why established precedents or cited authorities applied to the facts, or did not consider gravity of offence and role of accused, interference is warranted. In one instance the High Court's bail order was set aside and accused directed to surrender; in another, the bail order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in light of the principles governing grant of bail.

Conclusion: A non-speaking order granting bail that does not reflect application of mind or consideration of relevant factors is vulnerable to interference. Orders of the High Court in the present matters are set aside; one accused directed to surrender and another matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Conclusion in favour of Appellant)

Final Conclusion: The appeals against the grants of bail succeed: the impugned High Court orders are set aside because parity was applied as the sole ground without assessment of role and because the orders lacked adequate reasons; one accused is directed to surrender and another accused's bail is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with settled principles on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Parity is a legitimate but not an independent or sole ground for bail; parity is applicable only where the accused's role and position in the offence are identically similar to the co-accused granted bail, and courts must record sufficient reasons or otherwise demonstrate application of mind, having regard to the role of the accused and gravity of the offence, when granting bail.

---