Allahabad High Court defers bail decision for translator Satyam Verma until September 23

The Allahabad High Court has postponed until September 23 its decision on whether to grant bail to freelance translator and former journalist Satyam Verma, after state prosecutors requested time to file objections based on the legal principle of parity. The development marks a fresh twist in one of eleven criminal cases filed against Verma following protests by workers in Noida in April 2026.

Justice Krishan Pahal was hearing Verma's bail application in Case Crime No. 164 of 2026, registered at Police Station Phase-2, Gautam Buddh Nagar. The FIR invokes several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Verma's legal team has argued that he should be granted bail on grounds of parity with a co-accused who received bail in the same case on June 23. However, after the state counsel sought an opportunity to oppose the bail application specifically on the grounds of parity, the court deferred the matter for consideration of the state's objections.

Understanding the principle of parity

The principle of parity holds that individuals involved in similar offences and circumstances should generally receive comparable sentences. The doctrine aims to ensure fairness and prevent unjustified differences in sentencing across cases with similar facts.

However, courts have consistently emphasised that parity does not mandate identical sentences. The principle requires consideration of the individual circumstances of each case, including both aggravating and mitigating factors. While the purpose is to ensure that people in substantially similar circumstances are not given disproportionately different sentences, it does not replace the need for individualised sentencing.

How parity applies in bail matters

In bail cases, the principle of parity is generally invoked when a co-accused in the same case has already been granted bail. The accused may argue that they are similarly placed and should therefore receive similar relief.

The principle can also be raised where a co-accused has been acquitted, though this does not automatically entitle another accused to bail. Courts must examine the circumstances and role of each accused separately, as parity is not an absolute right.

The June 23 bail order for co-accused Shiv Kumar, also known as Shiva, in the same case forms the basis of Verma's parity argument.

Limitations on parity claims

Legal precedent establishes significant limitations on when parity can successfully be invoked. An absconding accused cannot automatically seek anticipatory bail merely because other co-accused have been acquitted. This is because an acquittal is based on the evidence relating to the accused who was tried, and does not automatically benefit a person who remained absconding and did not face the trial.

Similarly, findings made during the trial of the co-accused cannot simply be treated as deciding the case of an absconding accused. Granting an absconding accused anticipatory bail solely on the ground of parity could also undermine the judicial process by rewarding a person who evaded it.

What the Supreme Court has said

In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana(Koli) and Anr. decided in 2021, the Supreme Court observed that while utilizing parity as a ground for bail, the same must focus on the role of the accused and cannot be utilised solely because another accused person was granted bail in connection with the same offence. The Court further stated that this ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The Court observed that in deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance.

In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., decided in 2015, the Supreme Court held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail.

Recent Supreme Court guidance on absconding accused

In February 2026, the Supreme Court's decision in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh dealt with a situation where an absconding accused sought anticipatory bail after his co-accused had been acquitted. The Court held that such an accused cannot claim parity merely because the co-accused was acquitted.

The judgment also held that the absconding accused could not automatically rely on findings recorded during the co-accused's trial, since the prosecution was not required to lead evidence against him during that trial. This ruling establishes that evasion of the judicial process carries consequences that affect an accused person's ability to invoke parity.

The state's request for time to file objections on parity grounds suggests prosecutors intend to argue distinctions between Verma's role and circumstances and those of the co-accused who received bail in June. The September 23 hearing will consider these objections before the court decides whether the principle of parity applies in Verma's case.

Source: The Hindu