The High Court of Uttarakhand reaffirmed that if a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail, then the principle of parity requires bail to be granted to the applicant as well, even in serious offences such as those under Sections 302, 307, and 34 IPC. This clarification upholds existing bail jurisprudence and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Uttarakhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | BA2/261/2025 of GARV MEHRA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010158602025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Bail Jurisprudence |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail should be granted to an accused on the ground of parity with co-accused. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court found that since the co-accused — having a similar role — was already granted bail (a fact admitted by the State), the applicant is also entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the principle of parity applies, and thus it is a fit case for bail. The Court allowed the bail application and directed for release on appropriate bonds and sureties. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Applicant in judicial custody in FIR No. 83 of 2024 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 34 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. Co-accused with a similar role already granted bail. Application moved for bail on ground of parity. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially on principle of parity in bail matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the principle of parity is a sufficient ground for bail if the co-accused, with a similar role, has already been released on bail.
- Admission by the State regarding parity can be decisive in securing bail.
- Bail applications citing parity may be favorably considered, even in serious offences like Section 302 IPC, provided roles are comparable.
- Lawyers should obtain and highlight previous bail orders for similarly placed co-accused to strengthen bail pleas.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The applicant was in custody for offences including murder, attempt to murder, and other serious charges under the IPC and Arms Act.
- The main ground urged was parity—co-accused, with a similar role in the alleged offence, had already been granted bail.
- The State counsel admitted to the correctness of this submission.
- The Court, relying on the established principle of parity and in consideration of the State’s admission, found it a fit case for bail.
- Bail was granted subject to furnishing of personal bond and reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The co-accused, allegedly having a similar role in the incident, has already been granted bail.
- On grounds of parity, the applicant should also be released on bail.
Respondent (State)
- Admits that the co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail.
Factual Background
The applicant, Garv Mehra, was in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 83 of 2024, registered at Police Station I.T.I., Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 34 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The applicant sought bail on the ground that another accused, assigned a similar role in the case, had already been granted bail, a fact accepted by the State.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections involved: 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 34 (common intention) of the IPC, and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
- The judgment applied the principle of parity in bail decisions, consistent with existing bail jurisprudence, though did not undertake fresh interpretation or “reading down” of any statutory provision.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed established bail jurisprudence regarding parity with co-accused.