The story so far: The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday (September 15, 2026) deferred the hearing on the bail plea of freelance translator and former journalist Satyam Verma in one of the 11 criminal cases registered against him in connection with the April 2026 Noida workers’ protest after the state counsel sought an opportunity to file objections to his bail plea on the ground of parity.
An acquittal is based on the evidence relating to the accused who was tried. It does not automatically benefit a person who remained absconding and did not face the trial. 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. A Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal was hearing Verma’s bail plea in Case Crime No.
However, after the state counsel later sought an opportunity to oppose bail on the grounds of parity, the matter was posted by the court for consideration on the State’s objections on September 23. State of U.P. (2015), the Supreme Court has 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. 164 of 2026, registered at Police Station Phase-2, Gautam Buddh Nagar. The FIR has invoked 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. On June 23, the High Court had granted bail to co-accused Shiv Kumar, also known as Shiva, in the same case.
On parity, it is necessary to refer to Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana(Koli) and Anr .(2021). Because another accused person was granted bail in connection with the same offence, and neither can this ground be claimed as a matter of right, 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.
Similarly, findings made during the trial of the co-accused cannot simply be treated as deciding the case of an absconding accused.
