The Allahabad High Court delayed a hearing on journalist Satyam Verma’s bail request in a case linked to the April 2026 Noida workers’ protest. Verma, a freelance translator and former journalist, is one of 11 accused in the case. His lawyer argued for bail based on the principle of parity, referencing a co-accused who was granted bail earlier.
The principle of parity ensures fairness in legal outcomes for individuals involved in similar offences and circumstances. However, it does not mandate identical sentences but requires courts to consider each case’s unique details, including aggravating or mitigating factors.
In bail cases, accused individuals often use parity by pointing out that a co-accused has been released on bail. However, this does not automatically entitle the other accused to similar treatment. Courts must evaluate each individual’s role and circumstances separately.
For example, if an accused is absconding (evading authorities), they cannot claim bail simply because a co-accused was acquitted or granted bail. The acquittal of one does not benefit another who has avoided trial.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that parity should focus on the accused’s role in the offence and their relationship to the victims. It is not a right but a guideline to ensure fair treatment in similar situations.
In Verma’s case, the court deferred its decision after the state counsel opposed bail on grounds of parity. The case remains pending for further consideration.