Principle of Parity

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi in the case of Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (2026) held that an absconding accused cannot invoke the principle of parity to seek anticipatory bail merely because co-accused persons have been acquitted in trial. 

What was the Background of Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The complainant was aggrieved by the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench order granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No.2-accused, who was declared an absconder. 
• The High Court granted anticipatory bail merely because the co-accused persons in the subject FIR were acquitted by the trial court. 
• The accused had absconded from investigation and trial for nearly six years. 
• The accused had threatened to kill the injured victim Shailendra alias Pintu, who was also an eye witness in the subject FIR, for opposing his bail application. 
• An FIR No.272/2019 dated 10.05.2019 was registered against the accused for threatening the witness. 
• The accused's earlier anticipatory bail pleas had already been rejected. 
• The complainant challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court, arguing that parity cannot be claimed by an absconding accused. 
• The complainant contended that the co-accused person's acquittal was based on evidence specific to them and had no bearing on the absconding accused. 
• The State (Respondent No.1) supported the complainant's appeal, though the Supreme Court questioned their decision not to appeal against the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that the principle of parity cannot be invoked by an absconder who deliberately evades trial to seek anticipatory bail merely because a co-accused has been acquitted. 
• The Court stated "granting the relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent and sends a message that the law-abiding co-accused persons who stood trial, were wrong to diligently attend the process of trial and further, incentivises people to evade the process of law with impunity." 
• The Court found that the ground raised by the accused that other co-accused were acquitted "does not ipso facto entitle him to the relief of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity, particularly when the Accused himself failed to cooperate with the Court and delayed the trial of the other co-accused by absconding." 
• The High Court's reasoning for granting anticipatory bail solely on the absence of cogent evidence and the acquittal of co-accused was termed as erroneous by the Supreme Court. 
• The Court observed that the High Court failed to consider that any finding recorded by the trial Court either against or in favour of the absconding accused is wholly irrelevant for deciding the bail application as the prosecution was not required to produce any evidence against the absconding accused during the trial of co-accused persons. 
• The Court emphasized that the accused had absconded for about 6 years and made a mockery of the judicial process. 
• The Court clarified that while an absconder is not entitled to anticipatory bail as a general rule, in exceptional cases where on perusal of the FIR, case diary and other relevant materials, the Court is of prima facie opinion that no case is made out against the absconding accused, then the power of granting anticipatory bail may be exercised. 
• The Court held that the High Court had not rightly exercised discretion to grant anticipatory bail as it was not a fit case for such relief. 
• The appeal was allowed, and the accused was directed to surrender before the Court concerned within four weeks from the date of judgment. 

What is the Principle of Parity? 

Meaning & Definition: 

• The parity principle means that a sentence should be "similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances." 
• All sentences must respect the parity principle given the subjective nature of the sentencing process. 
• Offenders sentenced for the same or similar offences should not receive disparate sentences. 
• Sentences should be approximately the same, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors unique to the individual. 
• Parity does not mean uniformity and should not reduce the focus on the need for proportionality. 

Purpose: 

• The purpose of the parity principle is to ensure fairness by avoiding disproportionate sentences among convicted persons where essentially the same facts and circumstances indicate equivalent or like sentences. 
• It does not override the individualized approach to sentencing. 
• The purpose is not to match sentences perfectly but rather to advance fairness. 

Parity in Bail Cases 

• In bail matters, the parity principle is invoked when a co-accused has been granted bail, and the accused seeks similar relief on the ground of being similarly situated. 
• The principle allows an accused to claim bail on the ground that a co-accused in the same FIR has been granted bail or acquitted. 

Limitations of Parity in Bail: 

• Parity cannot be claimed as an absolute right; it must be assessed in light of individual circumstances. 
• An absconding accused cannot invoke the principle of parity to seek anticipatory bail merely because co-accused persons have been acquitted. 
• The acquittal of co-accused is based on evidence specific to their trial and does not automatically benefit an absconding accused who evaded the entire trial process. 
• Any findings recorded by the trial court in favour of or against an absconding accused during the co-accused's trial are wholly irrelevant for deciding the bail application of the absconder. 
• Granting anticipatory bail to an absconder on parity grounds sets a bad precedent and incentivises evasion of the judicial process.