Parity is one of the most invoked and least understood grounds in bail practice. The Delhi High Court’s order in Bhola Shankar v. State of GNCT Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 2000/2026, decided on 24 September 2026, is a clean illustration of when it actually works: the applicant’s alleged role — driving the vehicle — was no graver than that of co-accused already released, and with about a year and seven months of custody behind him, continued detention served no purpose the trial could not.
The facts
On 14 February 2025, two masked assailants robbed a travel agency in Delhi of Rs 7,50,000 at gunpoint. The prosecution’s case cast the applicant in a supporting role: he drove the vehicle in which the robbers fled. The two alleged gunmen were arrested the next day; the applicant a week later. The prosecution relied on recoveries of looted money and firearms said to have been made at his instance. By the time the High Court heard his second-tier bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, he had spent roughly one year and seven months in custody, and the co-accused — the men alleged to have wielded the weapons — were already on bail.
The parity principle, correctly applied
Parity does not mean automatic release because someone else got bail. Courts compare roles, antecedents and the stage of proceedings. What made parity decisive here was an a fortiori structure: those with the graver alleged role (armed entry and robbery) had been enlarged; the applicant’s role (driving) was lesser or at most equivalent. In that configuration, refusing bail to the remaining accused amounts to unequal treatment on identical or weaker prosecution allegations.
| Parity works when… | Parity fails when… |
|---|---|
| The comparator’s role is graver or identical and he stands released on merits. | The applicant’s role is distinguishable — e.g., the armed assailant claiming parity with a bystander. |
| Antecedents and conduct are broadly comparable, or differences are managed by conditions. | The applicant has absconded, tampered with evidence, or breached earlier bail. |
| Investigation is complete and custody has run long. | The comparator’s bail was obtained by suppression or has since been cancelled. |
Custody, recoveries and the completed investigation
The order also reflects the standard post-chargesheet logic: once investigation is complete, custodial detention loses its investigative purpose, and the questions narrow to flight risk, tampering and reoffending. Each was answered with conditions rather than continued detention — a bond, weekly police reporting, address and phone disclosure, and strict prohibitions on contacting witnesses. Recoveries attributed to the accused remain matters for trial; they establish a triable case, not a ground for indefinite incarceration.
Building a parity-based bail application:
✓ Annex the co-accused’s bail orders and tabulate the roles as the chargesheet itself describes them.
✓ Address antecedents candidly and propose tailored conditions in advance.
✓ State the custody period, chargesheet date and trial stage in a single arithmetic paragraph.
✓ Verify the comparator’s bail still subsists — a cancelled comparator order sinks the argument.
For complainants and the prosecution, the counter-strategy is to differentiate roles with evidence, not epithets: call records placing the driver in the conspiracy’s planning, recoveries linking him to the proceeds, or conduct after release of co-accused. Parity is defeated by demonstrated distinction, never by generalised opposition.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the allegation?
Two masked men robbed a travel agency of Rs 7,50,000 at gunpoint on 14 February 2025; the applicant allegedly drove the getaway vehicle. He faced prosecution under Sections 311 and 317(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959.
Recoveries were made from him — why did bail still follow?
Recovery is a factor, not a veto. The court weighed the completed investigation, the period of custody (over eighteen months), and the fact that co-accused alleged to be the actual armed robbers — with graver roles — had already been granted bail. Once the more culpable are out, detaining the less culpable requires special justification.
Do pending previous FIRs bar bail?
Not by themselves. Antecedents inform the risk assessment and shape conditions — here, weekly police reporting was imposed — but the settled position is that criminal history alone does not disentitle an accused where the primary factors favour release.
What conditions were imposed?
Personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety, mandatory appearances, weekly reporting to police, disclosure of address and mobile number, and prohibitions on witness contact and fresh offences.