No Bail Parity With Order Won by Suppression: Raj HC

No Parity With a Bail Order Obtained by Suppressing Evidence: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 12 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court cancelled the bail of a murder accused who had obtained it without placing the Section 164 CrPC statements of two last-seen witnesses before the Court, and rejected the bail pleas of two co-accused who relied only on parity with her (paras 22, 30). Parity rests on positive equality, and it cannot be applied as a straitjacket formula where the co-accused got bail without the correct facts and evidence before the Court (paras 25, 29).

Key holdings

Omitting last-seen witnesses’ Section 164 statements from the charge-sheet filed with a bail plea is suppression of material evidence (paras 11-14).

A bail order obtained with unclean hands is liable to be recalled (paras 15, 21-22).

Parity rests on positive equality; there is no negative parity with an order passed on suppressed facts (paras 24-27).

A co-accused’s bail granted without consideration of the evidence is no ground for bail (para 28).

Once the co-accused’s bail is recalled, a claim resting only on parity with her fails (para 30).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Four persons were charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 34 IPC for a murder in Kota on 07.09.2023; the informant alleged that the deceased was last seen with three of them and his body was found at Anuj Pokharna's house (paras 1, 6-7). On 07.03.2024 the High Court granted bail to co-accused Indira Kumari, recording that she was not named in the FIR or in the last-seen witness's Section 161 statement (para 8). Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj then sought bail on parity alone (paras 9-10, 23). Their copy of the charge-sheet contained Section 164 statements of two witnesses placing her with the deceased too (paras 12-13). On 20.03.2024 the Court issued her a suo motu cancellation notice (para 13).

Court's Findings

The Section 164 statements of the last-seen witnesses were part of the charge-sheet but were neither in the copy annexed to Indira Kumari's bail application nor supplied to the Public Prosecutor, so bail was granted as if there were no last-seen evidence against her (paras 11-12). Her plea of a bona fide belief that she had sent complete documents failed because the co-accused's copies contained those statements (para 13). She had concealed material evidence, approached the Court with unclean hands and tried to pollute the stream of justice (paras 14-15). Relying on Chandra Shashi, K.D. Sharma, Dalip Singh, Moti Lal Songara and Kishore Samrite, the Court held that an order obtained by suppressing facts must be set aside; the victim has as much right to justice as the accused (paras 16-21). On parity, it followed Tarun Kumar, Aminuddin and Basawaraj: parity is based on positive equality, Article 14 does not perpetuate an illegality, and a wrong order gives others no right to the same relief (paras 25-27). Parity applies where the cases are identical, not where the co-accused got bail without consideration of the evidence on record (para 28).

Legal Principle

Parity is a desirable rule in bail where the accused's case is identical with a co-accused's, but it is no straitjacket formula. If the co-accused obtained bail without the correct facts and evidence before the court, others cannot claim negative parity, and a bail order secured by suppressing material evidence is liable to be recalled (paras 21, 24-25, 28-29).

Precedents Relied Upon

Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 16
The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted; anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings and must be dealt with, both to punish the wrong and to deter others.
K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17
An applicant who suppresses or conceals material facts and misleads the court is not entitled to relief; the court may refuse to examine the case on merits and such an applicant may be dealt with for contempt.
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 14
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 18
A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

View all precedents (14)

Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash @ Pappu & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 199
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 19, 21
Suppression of a material fact within the litigant’s knowledge is fraud on the court; an order obtained by such suppression cannot be allowed to stand, and the victim has as much right to justice as the accused.
Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013) 2 SCC 398
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 20
Principles governing a litigant’s obligation to approach the court with clean hands and the consequences of abuse of process, including that litigants with unclean hands are entitled neither to be heard nor to relief.
Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement SLP (Criminal) No. 9431/2023
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 25
The principle of parity is based on positive equality under Article 14; a wrong order or an illegality in favour of one person cannot be repeated or multiplied at the instance of others.
Aminuddin v. State of U.P. & Anr. SLP (Criminal) No. 5029/2021
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 26
Parity in bail cannot be claimed merely because a co-accused was granted bail ignoring the relevant considerations; where that bail is disapproved, bail granted only on parity with it cannot stand.
Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27
Article 14 does not envisage negative equality; relief granted to others by mistake confers no right on anyone else to the same relief.
State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati 2019 (19) SCC 625
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27
A wrong order in favour of one party does not entitle others to claim the same benefit; the superior court cannot be asked to repeat an illegality.
Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 27
Listed among decisions that enunciated or applied the principle that there is no negative equality.
Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 27
Listed among decisions that enunciated or applied the principle that there is no negative equality.
K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 27
Listed among decisions that enunciated or applied the principle that there is no negative equality.
Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010) 11 SCC 455
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 27
Listed among decisions that enunciated or applied the principle that there is no negative equality.
Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab (2014) 15 SCC 715
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 27
Listed among decisions that enunciated or applied the principle that there is no negative equality.

No Parity With a Bail Order Obtained by Suppressing Evidence: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Investment in Separate Units Under Same Ownership Not Clubbed for MSME Concessional CST Rate: Rajasthan High Court

Failed Demand Verification, No Bribe Demand: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ACB FIR Against Two Bikaner Policemen

Excise-Duty Restrictions Do Not Bar CENVAT Credit of CVD on Imported Coal: Rajasthan High Court