Calcutta High Court reaffirms the parity principle in bail applications where the State does not oppose, extending identical relief to co-accused under criminal procedure law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM(M)/1076/2025 of SAMRAT SINGH Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL |
| CNR | WBCHCA0320812025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether the parity principle applies to grant bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that in bail applications under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the parity principle requires equal treatment of co-accused similarly situated. Where one co-accused has been granted bail and the petitioner stands in the same factual and legal position without any distinguishing circumstance, the court will ordinarily extend the same relief. The non-opposition of the State to parity-based bail becomes a compelling factor in exercising the court’s discretion. Applying these principles, bail was granted on identical terms, subject to bond, sureties, mandatory attendance and prohibitions against witness intimidation or evidence tampering. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Applied the fundamental principle of parity in bail proceedings, extending identical relief to co-accused in similar circumstances. Considered the State’s non-opposition as a factor in the court’s discretionary exercise under Section 439 CrPC and Section 483 BNS. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the parity principle mandates bail for co-accused under identical terms when no distinguishing circumstances exist.
- Clarifies that the State’s non-opposition to a parity-based bail application significantly influences the court’s exercise of discretion.
- Demonstrates routine imposition of conditions—bond, sureties, appearance obligations, and prohibitions on witness intimidation or evidence tampering—under Sections 439 CrPC and 483 BNS.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner invoked the parity principle, relying on an earlier bail grant to a co-accused in identical circumstances.
- The State’s counsel expressly did not oppose extension of the same relief.
- The Court noted that both accused stood on the same factual and legal footing with no differentiating factor.
- Exercising its inherent discretion under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court applied the parity principle.
- Bail was granted on the same terms as the co-accused, subject to bond, sureties, attendance and non-tampering conditions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought bail on parity with a co-accused who had already been admitted to bail by this Court.
Respondent (State)
- Stated no objection to the petitioner’s parity-based bail application.
Factual Background
- In C.R.M. (M) 1076 of 2025, Samrat Singh applied for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Golabari Police Station Case No. 09 of 2023 dated 09 January 2023.
- The petitioner’s co-accused had earlier secured bail from this Court on identical facts.
- The petitioner contended that, being similarly circumstanced, he should receive the same relief.
- The State’s counsel did not oppose the grant of bail on parity grounds.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 439 CrPC: empowers a High Court to grant bail in non-bailable offences.
- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: confers inherent jurisdiction for bail considerations in applicable cases.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – reaffirms the established principle of parity in bail proceedings.