Parity in bail requires comparable roles and reasoned judicial scrutiny before bail can be sustained.

Parity does not by itself justify bail; it depends on whether the accused stands on the same footing as the co-accused in role, position and factual matrix. Mere participation in the same is insufficient where the attributed roles differ, and bail must be assessed on the nature of the accusation and the applicant's specific role. A bail order must also disclose relevant reasons and show consideration of material factors, including the gravity of the offence and surrounding circumstances. An unreasoned order or one that ignores these factors is unsustainable and may be set aside, with the bail question remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail could be granted solely on the ground of parity with a co-accused. (ii) Whether a bail order that does not disclose relevant reasons or consider material factors can be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether bail could be granted solely on the ground of parity with a co-accused.

Analysis: Parity is not a standalone entitlement to bail. It operates with reference to the role, position, and factual similarity of the accused in relation to the offence. Mere participation in the same occurrence does not establish parity where the roles are different. Bail decisions must consider the nature of the accusation and the specific role attributed to the applicant.

Conclusion: Bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of parity when the accused does not stand on the same footing as the co-accused.

Issue (ii): Whether a bail order that does not disclose relevant reasons or consider material factors can be sustained.

Analysis: An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and consideration of relevant factors such as the gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, and other circumstances bearing on the exercise of discretion. An order bereft of reasons, or one that fails to engage with the material considerations, cannot be allowed to stand. Where the defect is confined to the order of grant of bail and the matter requires reconsideration, remand to the High Court is appropriate.

Conclusion: A bail order lacking relevant reasons and consideration of material factors is unsustainable and may be set aside, with the bail question remitted for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal concerning one accused was allowed and bail was set aside, while the connected appeal was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration on proper principles. The overall effect is that parity alone is insufficient for bail and reasoned consideration remains essential.

Ratio Decidendi: Parity in bail depends on comparable role and position in the offence, and a bail order must show application of mind to the relevant factors before it can be sustained.

---