Rejecting Mechanical Parity in Bail: The Supreme Court’s New Principle in Aashish Yadav v. Yashpal (2025)

1. Introduction

In Aashish Yadav v. Yashpal & Ors. (2025 INSC 666) the Supreme Court of India was called upon to decide whether the Rajasthan High Court was justified in granting bail to two principal accused in a murder-cum-conspiracy case merely on the ground of “parity” with other co-accused who had earlier secured bail. The apex court’s decision sets out a significant clarification: parity cannot be invoked mechanically; courts must undertake an individualized assessment of each accused, their role, gravity of the offence, and the risk factors before granting bail.

The appellant (informant) challenged the High Court’s order releasing Yashpal and Raman—alleged masterminds who allegedly hired a contract killer (Vicky @ Kartoos)—on bail in a case involving Sections 302, 307, 120B, 147–149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the Arms Act.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s bail order dated 23-08-2024, and directed the respondents to surrender within two weeks.
The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the respondents’ case at par with that of lesser-involved co-accused. Parity in bail matters is not an absolute rule; it is subject to a comparative evaluation of role, antecedents, likelihood of interference with trial, and gravity of allegations.
It emphasized that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia; subsequent investigation may reveal deeper culpability, and courts must consider the entire prosecution material, not merely the initial recitals.
The Court underscored factors such as abscondence for six months, strong prima facie material, likelihood of influencing witnesses, and the gravity of the conspiracy as reasons for refusing bail.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Jurisprudential Lineage

Although the judgment does not explicitly list earlier cases, it implicitly rests upon a well-settled line of Supreme Court authorities that regulate bail decisions in serious offences:

Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia, (2020) 2 SCC 118 – Parity cannot be invoked in isolation; courts must record specific reasons while granting bail, especially in offences under Section 302 IPC.
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 – Bail orders passed in a perfunctory manner or ignoring material factors can be set aside by the Supreme Court.
Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648 – The concept of parity is qualified; courts must see whether the accused stand on an equal footing on all material particulars.
State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 – Enumerated guiding factors for bail (nature of accusations, gravity, evidence, likelihood of tampering, etc.).

By relying on these principles, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that bail is not to be granted as a matter of course merely because some other accused has secured it.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Individual Role & Gravity: Yashpal and Raman were alleged masterminds. The High Court had itself earlier observed that they were the “main accused” while granting bail to co-accused Kulwant and Om Prakash. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s volte-face (now terming them similarly situated) legally untenable.
Abscondence & Likelihood of Repetition: The respondents remained absconding for six months and surrendered only after their first bail plea was rejected. The Court treated this conduct as a relevant indicator of a flight risk.
Threat to Witnesses: Key prosecution witnesses (two injured eyewitnesses) were yet to testify. Given the allegation of hiring a contract killer, the Court accepted the informant’s apprehension that the accused might influence or intimidate them.
FIR vs. Subsequent Investigation: Rejecting the argument that the FIR attributed no overt act to the respondents, the Court reiterated that an FIR is merely the starting point; subsequent evidence—e.g., recovery of firearm from Yashpal’s house and test-fire location identified by the shooter—furnished robust prima facie material of conspiracy.
Error Apparent: Mechanical Parity: The High Court’s reasoning was labelled “mechanical”. Parity requires the accused to be similarly situated in fact and law; here, the earlier bailed co-accused were either aged (84 years) or had no role in planning. Therefore, the bail order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record.

3.3 Potential Impact on Future Cases

Heightened Scrutiny of Parity Pleas: Trial and High Courts must now explicitly articulate how each accused is truly comparable to a previously bailed co-accused, else risk reversal.
Greater Weight to Post-FIR Material: Investigative developments after the FIR will carry enhanced significance at the bail stage, particularly in conspiratorial offences.
Guidance for Prosecutors: The decision arms prosecutors with precedent to challenge bail granted on superficial parity grounds.
Safety Valve for Witness Protection: The Court’s acknowledgment of witness intimidation concerns may encourage lower courts to factor in protection mechanisms and reject bail where intimidation risk is high.
Consistency in Serious Offences: Reinforces that offences carrying the possibility of life imprisonment or death demand stricter bail scrutiny.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Bail on Parity: A judicial concession based on the principle that “equals should be treated equally.” If A is granted bail, B—similarly placed in role, evidence, and antecedents—may also claim it. However, the Court clarifies that similarity must be substantive, not superficial.
Common Intention (Section 34 IPC) vs. Conspiracy (Section 120B IPC): Common intention means a shared design formed on the spot; conspiracy is a prior agreement to commit an illegal act. Here, the prosecution alleges a conspiracy (pre-planning and hiring of a sharpshooter).
Abscondence: When an accused deliberately avoids arrest. It is a factor indicating potential flight risk if released on bail.
Non-Reportable Judgment: The Court has marked this decision as “non-reportable,” meaning it is not to be published in official law reports. Nevertheless, the ratio decidendi carries persuasive value.
Section 27 Evidence Act Statement: Allows the admissibility of information leading to discovery of a fact (e.g., weapon recovery) given by an accused in police custody.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Aashish Yadav v. Yashpal decisively holds that bail on the ground of parity is not a mechanical entitlement. Courts must scrutinize: (i) the accused’s specific role and involvement, (ii) the gravity of accusations, (iii) conduct such as abscondence, and (iv) the probability of witness intimidation or flight. The judgment strengthens the jurisprudential guardrails governing bail in serious, conspiratorial offences and serves as a cautionary tale for lower courts to craft well-reasoned, individualized bail orders. Ultimately, it balances the liberty of the accused against the integrity of criminal trials and the safety of society—a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.