While asking the Sessions Court to have the testimony of eight sensitive witnesses recorded in a criminal case, the Supreme Court has reiterated that parity is not a mechanical mathematical formula and the grant of bail to one accused does not constitute a ground for granting bail to another accused.

The Apex Court was considering a Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the Bombay High Court rejecting the petitioner’s second application for bail.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu stated, “It is trite that grant of bail to one accused does not, ipso facto, constitute a ground for granting bail to another accused. Parity is not a mechanical mathematical formula; it must be assessed based on the specific role attributed to each accused in the factual matrix.”

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy represented the Appellant while Advocate Abhay Anil Anturkar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was identified as an accused and arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. It was alleged that owing to a pre-existing family/property dispute, the petitioner, along with the co-accused persons, allegedly hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the victim, Chandrika @ Gabbar Sahani. It was the case of the prosecution that the petitioner deceitfully lured the victim to his rented residence in Porvorim, Goa, under the pretext of providing painting work. Thereafter, the petitioner and Ranajit Prasad wrongfully confined the victim in a room and brutally assaulted him with a wooden stick (danda). Subsequently, two other accused persons joined them and the accused persons tied the unconscious victim to a heavy stone using an orange-coloured nylon rope and iron hooks, transported the body in a Maruti Swift car, and disposed it in the Gaundalim river.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner, with requisite intention, was the principal architect of the plan to eliminate the victim, and with the help of the other accused (two currently on bail and one still in custody) acted as facilitators in giving effect to that design. Stating that the petitioner’s specific role stood out and could not be ignored, the Bench held, “Lest the case of either party is prejudiced, we refrain from delving deep into the matter and making further observations at this stage. The specific submission based on parity is, therefore, considered and rejected”, it held.

Referring to the judgments in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (2021), Sagar v. State of U.P. (2025) and Rekha Sengar v. State of M.P. (2021), the Bench held that the petitioner cannot claim an order for grant of bail on the ground of parity.

The Bench noted that the trial was in progress and the evidence of only one of the sixty-two witnesses whom the prosecution proposed to examine to drive home the charges against the petitioner and the co-accused had been recorded.

Considering that it had been less than three years since the petitioner’s liberty had been curtailed but the trial had commenced, the Bench held, “The mere fact of the petitioner having been incarcerated for nearly three years or the likelihood of the trial not concluding within a reasonable period would not by itself entitle him to be released on bail, given the gravity of the offence alleged and the possibility of the witnesses being influenced and the evidence being tampered with.”

Taking note of the concerns expressed by the respondent State that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence and having regard to the fact that testimonies of the vulnerable employee-witnesses and associates were highly crucial, the Bench stated, “...we encourage the relevant Sessions Court to make sincere endeavour to have the testimony of the following eight sensitive witnesses recorded, out of turn, i.e., PW-25 Sonu Sahani, PW-26 Biju Sahani, PW-29 Amarnath Maurya, PW-30 Shriram Tharu, PW-33 Santu Singh, PW-34 Ganesh Tharu, PW-36 Sahil Shinde and PW-38 Mahabaleshwar Gouda, within a year from the date of communication of this order.”

The Bench thus disposed of the Petition by clarifying, “Should recording of the aforesaid eight witnesses be complete even before the stipulated period of a year ends or be not completed within such period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum afresh for consideration of his prayer for grant of bail.”

Cause Title: Rajendra Prasad v. State of Goa & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 891)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocates Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Menaka Guruswamy, AOR Mohit Negi, Advocates Prashant Agrawal, Rasik Rama Borkar, Bhumika Yadav

Respondent: Advocates Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Sarthak Mehrotra, AOR Surbhi Kapoor, Advocates Uday Gautam, Aradhya Srivastava, Nakul Patwardhan

Click here to read/download Order


Justice Dipankar DattaJustice Sheel Nagu

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.