Bail applications are decided on the particular facts of the case, and no order is authority for the grant of bail in another. What individual orders do usefully show is the reasoning a court applies. An order passed by the Delhi High Court on 31 July 2026 in Inderpal alias Bhairo v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 3030/2026, brings together three familiar considerations: the role attributed to the applicant, the position of co-accused, and the stage the trial has reached.
The allegation
The case arose from FIR No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station Jahangir Puri for offences under Sections 307, 120B, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The offences are alleged to have been committed on 4 January 2024, before the coming into force of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on 1 July 2024, which is why the Penal Code provisions continue to govern the prosecution.
According to the prosecution case, the complainant entered a park near his home. The applicant, together with a number of other persons, was standing outside. Several co-accused scaled the park wall. One exhorted the others, and two of them opened fire. The shot misfired and struck a child.
How the application was argued
The applicant had been in custody since 14 March 2024. Two matters were pressed on his behalf. The first was the length of that custody. The second was parity: the two persons alleged to have actually fired had already been granted bail.
The position taken by the State was significant. The Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that the applicant was simply standing outside the park and was not attributed any direct involvement in the firing.
The order
Justice Girish Kathpalia granted bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount. The reasoning turned on two points taken together. The testimonies of the complainant and of the injured child had already been recorded, so the principal apprehension in a case of this kind — that the accused, if released, might influence the very witnesses whose evidence decides the case — had substantially fallen away. And the applicant's role, on the prosecution's own case, was peripheral when set against that of the persons who had fired and who were already on bail. In those circumstances the Court observed that no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in custody indefinitely.
What the reasoning illustrates
Three strands run through most regular bail applications before the Delhi High Court, and this order shows all three operating together.
Role attributed
What the prosecution itself alleges the applicant did, as distinct from what the group is alleged to have done. Sections 34 and 149 IPC often mean an applicant faces the same charge as the principal offender while the specific act attributed to him is far less grave.
Position of co-accused
Where a co-accused with an equal or graver role has already been enlarged, parity is a proper consideration, subject to genuinely distinguishing circumstances.
Stage of trial
Once the material prosecution witnesses have deposed, the risk of tampering recedes and the period already undergone in custody assumes greater weight.
Each of these has to be established from the record rather than asserted. The role attributed is drawn from the first information report, the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the chargesheet. The position of co-accused is established by placing the orders granting them bail on record and showing what role each was alleged to have played. The stage of the trial is established from the trial court record, and it is prudent to obtain a certified copy of the order sheet or a status report reflecting which witnesses stand examined.
Parity is a consideration, not an entitlement. Courts have consistently declined to apply it where the applicant is distinguishable — for example, where he is alleged to have played the principal role, where there are prior convictions or pending cases, where he absconded, or where he misused liberty granted earlier. An application founded on parity is stronger when it also addresses, candidly, why the applicant is not distinguishable.
The provisions that now apply
For offences committed on or after 1 July 2024, applications are made under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. For offences committed before that date, as in this case, the substantive law remains the Indian Penal Code, 1860, although procedural steps taken after the commencement date are governed by the Sanhita in accordance with its saving provisions.
| Purpose | CrPC, 1973 | BNSS, 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Bail in non-bailable offences, powers of High Court and Court of Session | Section 439 | Section 483 |
| Anticipatory bail | Section 438 | Section 482 |
| Statements to police during investigation | Section 161 | Section 180 |
| Cancellation of bail | Sections 437(5), 439(2) | Sections 480(5), 483(3) |
A note on how such applications are prepared
An application that simply recites the period of custody and the fact that co-accused are on bail leaves the court to do the comparison for itself. The more useful course is to set out, in a short and neutral narrative, exactly what the prosecution alleges against the applicant as distinct from the others; to annexe the orders by which the co-accused were released, with the roles attributed to them; and to place on record the current stage of the trial with the list of witnesses examined. Where the State's own position, as recorded in a status report or stated by the prosecutor, supports the applicant on any of these points, that is properly brought to the court's attention.
It should be remembered that an order granting bail is not a finding on the merits of the prosecution case. The observations made while deciding a bail application are tentative and do not bind the trial court, which decides the case on the evidence led before it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is meant by parity in bail?
Parity is the principle that an accused whose role is similar to, or less serious than, that of a co-accused already released on bail should ordinarily receive similar treatment. It is not applied mechanically. The court compares the specific allegations, the material against each accused, and any distinguishing features such as antecedents or conduct while on bail.
Does the completion of key evidence assist a bail application?
It often does. Where the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the risk of the accused influencing their testimony is reduced, and that consideration loses much of its force. Prolonged custody thereafter serves progressively less purpose, particularly where the accused is not attributed the principal role.
What is the difference between regular and anticipatory bail?
Regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, is sought after arrest. Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, corresponding to Section 438 CrPC, is sought in apprehension of arrest. The considerations overlap but are not identical, and the applicable procedure differs.
Are bail conditions negotiable?
Conditions are imposed at the discretion of the court and typically address attendance, contact with witnesses, tampering with evidence, and availability of address and contact details. A condition that is unworkable in the applicant's circumstances may be brought to the court's notice, but conditions once imposed must be complied with strictly, as breach can lead to cancellation.