• Adv Govind Bali
• Criminal Law & Bail
• August 20, 2026

Short answer: bail on parity under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is available when the applicant and a released co-accused are materially comparable. A co-accused’s bail order is relevant, but it does not create an automatic right to release. The court must examine the applicant’s individual role, the evidence attributed to each person, criminal antecedents, recoveries, custody, conduct, risks to the trial and any special statutory restriction. If the earlier order was illegal, unreasoned, interim, medical, statutory or based on facts personal to that co-accused, Article 14 does not compel repetition of the same result.

The principal regular-bail provisions are Section 480 BNSS and Section 483 BNSS. Neither section separately codifies a mechanical “parity rule.” The doctrine operates within the court’s structured bail discretion and the constitutional requirement that like cases be treated alike.

What does “parity” mean in bail proceedings?

Parity is an equality-based argument. It asks whether the applicant stands on substantially the same footing as a co-accused who has already received bail. The comparison is functional, not superficial. Two accused may face the same sections but perform entirely different alleged acts. Conversely, two accused with comparable roles, evidence, custody and antecedents should not ordinarily receive inconsistent treatment without a legally relevant reason.

In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230, the Supreme Court held that parity must focus on the role attributed to the accused. Merely noting that another accused carried a similar weapon did not complete the analysis. The court considering parity must determine whether the individual role and surrounding circumstances are genuinely comparable.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle in Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2584. Parity could not be the sole basis for bail merely because another person in the same offence had been released. The applicant’s position in the crime—including the alleged role—required independent assessment. The judgment is particularly important because it is a recent restatement under the current procedural environment.

Statutory and jurisdictional framework under the BNSS

Forum or situation	Provision	Parity issue
Magistrate considering non-bailable offence	Section 480 BNSS	A co-accused’s order is relevant, subject to the statutory restrictions and individual role.
Sessions Court or High Court	Section 483 BNSS	The court has special bail powers but must exercise them judicially and give reasons for accepting or distinguishing parity.
Anticipatory bail	Section 482 BNSS	Different need for custodial interrogation, cooperation or process can defeat comparison with another accused.
Second or successive bail application	Sections 480/483 plus judicial discipline	A later co-accused order may be a changed circumstance if genuine parity is established.
Special-statute prosecution	BNSS plus special bail provision	Parity cannot replace the NDPS, PMLA, UAPA or other mandatory statutory test.

For the general bail factors and filing sequence, see our guide to regular bail and criminal-court practice.

The correct parity comparison: a factor-by-factor test

A persuasive parity application should compare the applicant with the released co-accused across every legally significant dimension.

1. The specific role alleged

Identify the overt act or legal role attributed to each accused. Was one alleged to have planned, instigated, financed, supplied a weapon, inflicted the principal injury, received the proceeds or concealed evidence? Was the other accused merely present, a subordinate employee, a peripheral participant or implicated through a general allegation? The prosecution’s case may invoke common intention, common object or conspiracy, but that does not eliminate the need to evaluate the particular position of each applicant at the bail stage.

2. Nature and quality of the material

Compare eyewitness attribution, documentary trail, electronic material, recoveries, disclosure statements, identification evidence, call records and forensic links. Parity is stronger where the same type and strength of evidence is relied upon against both accused. It is weaker where one is directly identified or linked to incriminating material and the other is implicated only through a derivative allegation.

3. Recovery and possession

Recovery of a weapon, narcotic substance, proceeds of crime, forged document or stolen property can materially differentiate two accused. Quantity and character also matter. A person allegedly possessing commercial quantity under the NDPS Act is not similarly placed to a co-accused linked with a smaller or non-commercial quantity merely because both appear in the same case.

4. Criminal antecedents

In Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 INSC 841; (2014) 16 SCC 508, the Supreme Court interfered where parity had overshadowed serious criminal antecedents and other relevant considerations. A clean record and a history-sheet are not comparable positions. The court should distinguish acquittals, closed cases, pending trials and convictions rather than relying only on a raw number.

5. Custody period and procedural stage

Two accused arrested on different dates may have undergone materially different incarceration. One may have received bail after years in custody and substantial trial delay, while the later applicant has been detained for a short period. Similarly, completion of investigation, filing of the police report and examination of material witnesses can change the risk analysis.

6. Conduct and cooperation

An accused who appeared on notices, surrendered, supplied documents and attended proceedings is not necessarily comparable to one who absconded, influenced witnesses, breached interim protection or failed to cooperate. In anticipatory-bail matters, the perceived need for custodial interrogation may be specific to the applicant.

7. The legal basis of the co-accused’s release

This is frequently overlooked. Determine whether the co-accused received:

• regular discretionary bail on merits;
• interim or temporary bail;
• medical bail on personal evidence;
• default bail because of a statutory filing failure;
• bail under the maximum-undertrial-detention provision;
• protection because of age, sex, illness or another statutory proviso;
• bail because a special-law condition was satisfied on facts unique to that person; or
• release through an unchallenged or legally defective order.

Parity is ordinarily strongest when the earlier order is a reasoned merits order concerning a co-accused with a truly similar position. It is weak where the foundation for release is personal or statutory. For the distinct remedy, see default bail under BNSS Section 187.

Parity is relevant, but it is not the entire bail test

A bail court must still consider the established factors: prima facie involvement, nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of possible punishment, likelihood of absconding, potential to influence witnesses, risk of repeating the offence, criminal history, custody and trial progress. Parity does not displace these considerations.

The point is illustrated by Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1006. The Supreme Court rejected a parity claim where the applicant’s alleged role differed from co-accused who had obtained relief. It also reiterated that equality doctrine does not require a court to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity. An applicant cannot demand the benefit of an erroneous order merely because it remains operative for somebody else.

When parity can be a strong ground for bail

Parity is most persuasive where the following features substantially align:

• the same incident, prosecution theory and stage of proceedings;
• the same or a less serious alleged role;
• similar evidentiary material and no additional recovery;
• equal or longer custody;
• comparable criminal antecedents;
• similar cooperation and likelihood of appearing for trial;
• the co-accused’s bail was a reasoned order on merits; and
• the same statutory bail test applies to both.

A useful positive example is the Supreme Court’s order in Tara Chand v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 4760 of 2024, order dated 25 November 2024. In a PMLA prosecution, the Court considered the difficulty in attributing a direct role to the appellant and granted bail by parity with a co-accused already released by the Supreme Court. The result followed an assessment of role and the existing comparable order; it was not parity by label alone.

When parity will ordinarily fail

Difference	Why it can defeat parity
Principal assailant versus peripheral participant	The applicant’s alleged role is more serious even though the charged provisions overlap.
Specific recovery from applicant	Weapon, contraband, money trail or document can create distinct evidentiary weight.
Serious antecedents	Risk of repetition, witness intimidation or flight may differ materially.
Medical or interim order to co-accused	The reason for release is personal and does not decide merits parity.
Default bail to co-accused	The statutory entitlement depends on timing and invocation, not relative merits.
Applicant absconded or breached protection	Conduct and availability for investigation or trial are different.
Earlier order is unreasoned or illegal	Article 14 does not compel repetition of an error.
Different special-law threshold	The applicant must independently satisfy the mandatory statute.

Can a later co-accused bail order support a second bail application?

Yes, potentially. If the applicant’s first bail application was rejected and a genuinely comparable co-accused is later granted bail on merits, that later order may amount to a material change in circumstances. The applicant must nevertheless disclose the previous refusal, annex it and explain why the new co-accused order changes the position.

The later application should not simply state “parity.” It should address every reason in the earlier rejection and show how the subsequent order concerns a person with the same or a more serious alleged role. The full principles governing repeat applications are discussed in second and successive bail applications under the BNSS.

If the co-accused’s order itself ignores material factors or is under challenge, the prosecution or complainant may contend that it cannot form a sound parity benchmark. Conversely, the court should give a reasoned explanation when two materially similar accused receive different outcomes.

Disclosure requirements and parallel bail proceedings

In Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, 2024 INSC 46; (2024) 4 SCC 432, the Supreme Court issued directions requiring bail applications to disclose earlier applications and orders and to state pending proceedings. The judgment responds to the danger of different courts or benches being presented with incomplete histories.

A parity-based application should disclose and annex:

• all previous bail and anticipatory-bail applications of the applicant;
• the complete orders passed in those proceedings;
• the co-accused’s bail application and complete order, not merely an operative paragraph;
• whether the co-accused’s order is challenged, stayed, modified or cancelled;
• the status of any application pending before another court; and
• the factual and legal differences, even where they are adverse to the applicant.

Suppression can defeat discretionary relief and expose a favourable order to annulment. If bail was obtained on an incomplete comparison, the distinction between challenging an illegal grant and cancellation for later misconduct becomes important. See cancellation and annulment of bail under BNSS Sections 480(5) and 483(3).

Parity in anticipatory-bail cases

Parity can be urged under Section 482, but the pre-arrest context often produces person-specific differences. Custodial interrogation may be sought from one accused but not another. One may have complied with notices and supplied documents; another may be unavailable or alleged to control the evidence. A co-accused may have obtained protection because of a limited role, age, illness or an undertaking uniquely applicable to that person.

Where summons, warrants or a police report have already changed the procedural stage, the correct remedy must be assessed separately. Our guide to anticipatory bail after chargesheet, summons and warrants explains those distinctions. For an out-of-State FIR, see transit anticipatory bail under the BNSS.

Special statutes: parity cannot bypass mandatory conditions

The parity doctrine remains subject to special enactments, including:

• NDPS Act, Section 37: where applicable, the court must address the statutory twin conditions. Difference in quantity, conscious possession, recovery or role may be decisive.
• PMLA, Section 45: the applicant must satisfy the governing conditions unless a legally recognised exception applies. Tarun Kumar demonstrates why differentiated roles matter.
• UAPA, Section 43D(5): the statutory prima facie test cannot be replaced by a general parity assertion.
• SC/ST Act, Sections 18 and 18A: in pre-arrest matters, the statutory bar and the question whether a prima facie offence is disclosed require independent examination.

A co-accused may have obtained bail because the special-statute material against that person was weaker or because a constitutional-delay principle applied after prolonged detention. The applicant must establish the same factual and legal foundation, not merely cite the result.

How to draft a parity chart for court

A concise comparison table often assists the court more than a long narrative:

Comparison field	Applicant	Released co-accused
Alleged role/overt act	Quote FIR/police report with page	Quote corresponding allegation
Evidence and recovery	Identify material relied upon	Identify same or stronger/weaker material
Custody	Arrest date and total custody	Custody when bail was granted
Antecedents	Complete and accurate status	Comparable status
Conduct	Cooperation, appearance, compliance	Corresponding conduct
Ground of release	Present merits ground	Merits, medical, interim, default or delay

Every entry should refer to a page in the filing set. Avoid selective comparison. If a difference exists, address why it is immaterial or why the applicant stands on a better footing.

Documents, procedure, timing and court fee

The application should ordinarily include the FIR, arrest and remand papers, police report if filed, relevant witness statements or depositions, current custody certificate, the applicant’s earlier bail orders, the complete co-accused order and the record necessary to compare roles. If the parity order is from an online repository, follow local practice on certified copies, downloaded judgments, affidavits and exemption applications.

There is no universal limitation period for invoking a co-accused’s later bail order. However, a second application should be filed only after a genuine new circumstance arises and should accurately state the date on which it arose. Delay can matter factually, while statutory remedies such as default bail have separate time-sensitive requirements.

Regular-bail applications ordinarily do not involve an ad valorem court fee. Nominal court-fee stamps, filing forms, affidavit requirements, advance service, indexing, pagination and e-filing steps depend on the concerned High Court or district-court rules. Section 483 also contains specific notice requirements for specified serious offences, including the provisions identified in its provisos. Local rules and current practice directions must be checked before filing.

Frequently asked questions

Is bail mandatory when a co-accused has already received bail?

No. The applicant must show material similarity in role, evidence, recovery, antecedents, custody, conduct and legal basis. The court must independently apply the bail test.

Can parity be denied even when the same sections are invoked?

Yes. Charged provisions do not establish identical participation. The principal assailant, instigator, conspirator, beneficiary and peripheral participant can stand on different footings.

Does a co-accused’s medical bail support parity?

Usually not unless the applicant has a comparable medical condition supported by equivalent evidence. A personal medical order is not ordinarily a merits precedent.

Can default bail to a co-accused be used for parity?

Default bail is a statutory entitlement dependent on the individual custody and filing chronology. Another accused’s default bail does not automatically establish merits parity.

Can parity be raised in a second bail application?

Yes, where the comparable co-accused order was passed after the earlier rejection and creates a material change. All prior orders must be disclosed and the new comparison must be specifically proved.

What if the co-accused’s bail order is wrong?

Equality law does not require courts to repeat an illegality. The applicant should establish an independently sustainable case rather than rely only on the earlier error.

Do criminal antecedents defeat parity?

They can. A materially different criminal history affects risk and judicial discretion. The nature, status and relevance of each case should be disclosed accurately.

Does parity override Section 37 NDPS or Section 45 PMLA?

No. The applicant must independently satisfy the special statutory test. Parity may support comparison but cannot replace mandatory conditions.

Conclusion

Bail on parity under the BNSS is an important safeguard against arbitrary inconsistency, but it is not a shortcut. The strongest application identifies a reasoned co-accused order, demonstrates similarity through a documented role-and-evidence chart, discloses every relevant proceeding and independently satisfies the ordinary and special statutory bail tests. Courts must treat like cases alike—but first they must determine whether the cases are truly alike.

Legal note: This article provides general legal information as of 20 August 2026. Bail depends on the FIR, police report, attributed role, evidence, custody, antecedents, prior orders, special statute and local court practice. Obtain case-specific advice from a qualified criminal-law practitioner.