No Parity With Co-Accused When Allegations Different: Jharkhand HC Upholds Denial Of Bail To Accused 'Instrumental' In Trafficking Minors

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the principle of parity cannot be mechanically applied in the case of bail applications, but should consider the factual situations and the role assigned to the accused.

The division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar, presiding over the case, observed, “There is no dispute that the Principle of Parity is made applicable in the matter of bail also but while applying the Principle of Parity the factual aspect and nature of allegation from whom the parity is sought for needs to be examined.”

The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, to support its finding.

The ruling was delivered in a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the appellant's plea for regular bail.

The appellant contended that he had remained in judicial custody since May 20, 2023, and that undue delay in disposing of the trial made bail a good ground. He also contended that bail was already granted to two co-accused individuals by a coordinate bench and that his case stood equally with them and thus deserved parity.

The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the appellant's role was distinct from that of the co-accused. While the co-accused were only accused of taking the services of the victims, the appellant was directly implicated in trafficking two minor victims, one of whom remains untraceable.

The court rejected the appellant's argument based on parity, referring to the Supreme Court's observations in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230. The court stated, “that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simply saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established.”

The court, taking into consideration the facts, rejected the appeal of the appellant for bail, noting that five of the nine charge-sheeted witnesses had already been examined and the trial was nearing its end. The court also noted that one of the trafficked children had incriminated the appellant directly in connection with the offense.

Given the gravity of the charges and one of the victims being unsatisfied with the existing order, the court found no basis to invoke the doctrine of parity and declined to interfere with the earlier order of denial of bail. The criminal appeal was thereby dismissed.

Case Title: Manoj Jaiswal @ Manoj Saw @ Manoj Pd. Jaiswal vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 23

Click here to Read Judgement