Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court has underscored the importance of judicial consistency and uniform application of legal principles while deciding bail applications, observing that similarly situated accused persons should ordinarily receive similar treatment unless there are distinguishing facts or legal considerations justifying a different conclusion. In Mohammad Rafiq @ Rafiqul Islam v. State of U.P., Justice Vivek Kumar Singh granted bail to the applicant while simultaneously calling for an explanation from the concerned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, regarding the apparent inconsistency in passing two contradictory bail orders in respect of identically placed co-accused in the same criminal case.
The case arose from a bail application filed by Mohammad Rafiq alias Rafiqul Islam, who had been booked under Sections 109(1), 352, 351(2), 115(2), 191(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). According to the prosecution, the applicant was one of the persons involved in an assault in which multiple injuries were caused to the victims. It was alleged that the applicant attacked one of the injured persons, Noshad, with a knife during the incident.
The medical evidence, however, disclosed that the injured had sustained ten injuries in total, out of which only one injury was allegedly caused by a knife and attributed to the applicant. The medical report further indicated that the injury was simple in nature and was not dangerous to life.
The controversy before the High Court did not merely concern the applicant’s entitlement to bail. During the hearing, it emerged that another co-accused, Anshu, who was alleged to have played an almost identical role by inflicting a knife injury upon another injured person during the same occurrence, had already been granted bail by the same Additional Sessions Judge less than a month after refusing bail to the present applicant.
The apparent inconsistency in the two orders prompted the High Court to examine whether similarly situated accused persons had been treated differently without any discernible distinction. Recognising that consistency in judicial decision-making is fundamental to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, the Court considered it appropriate not only to decide the bail application on its merits but also to seek an administrative explanation from the concerned judicial officer regarding the divergent approach adopted in the two bail orders.
The judgment therefore assumes significance beyond the grant of bail, as it highlights the institutional importance of reasoned judicial decision-making, parity in bail matters and transparency in the exercise of judicial discretion.
Arguments of the Parties:
The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated in the criminal case and that the allegations against him did not justify continued incarceration. His counsel argued that although the prosecution alleged that the applicant had caused a knife injury to the injured person, the medical evidence did not support the allegation that the injury was grievous or life-threatening.
Drawing the Court’s attention to the injury report of the injured Noshad, counsel submitted that the victim had sustained as many as ten injuries during the occurrence. Out of these, only one injury was allegedly attributed to the applicant, and that injury itself had been described as simple in nature. It was therefore argued that the prosecution’s allegation that the applicant acted with the intention to kill was not supported by the medical evidence.
The applicant further emphasized that he possessed no criminal antecedents and had no previous involvement in criminal activities. According to him, continued detention was unnecessary, particularly when the investigation had already progressed and there was no material suggesting that he would misuse the liberty of bail.
The principal submission advanced on behalf of the applicant related to the principle of parity. Counsel pointed out that co-accused Anshu, whose role in the occurrence was substantially identical, had already been granted bail by the same trial court through an order dated 9 June 2026. It was argued that the prosecution itself attributed a similar role to both accused persons, namely causing knife injuries to different victims during the same incident.
Since both accused were similarly situated, there existed no rational basis for denying bail to the applicant while extending the same relief to the co-accused. It was therefore submitted that the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity as well as on the merits of the case.
The State opposed the application and argued that sufficient evidence existed connecting the applicant with the commission of the offence. It was submitted that the prosecution case clearly disclosed the applicant’s direct participation in the assault and that he had specifically attacked the injured with a knife.
According to the prosecution, the gravity of the allegations and the applicant’s active role in the incident justified rejection of the bail application. The State therefore urged the High Court not to interfere with the order passed by the trial court and opposed the grant of bail.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh allowed the bail application after considering the medical evidence, the nature of the allegations and the principle of parity.
The Court first examined the injury report placed on record and observed that although the injured had sustained multiple injuries, the specific injury allegedly attributed to the applicant was a single knife injury inflicted on the back of the shoulder. Importantly, the medical report described the injury as simple in nature and did not indicate that it was dangerous to life.
The High Court also took note of the fact that the applicant had no criminal history and that the prosecution had attributed only one specific act to him during the incident.
A significant factor influencing the Court’s decision was the existence of an earlier bail order passed in favour of the co-accused. Justice Singh observed that the co-accused Anshu had been assigned an identical role by the prosecution, namely causing a knife injury to another victim during the same occurrence. Despite this similarity, the co-accused had already been enlarged on bail by the trial court.
The High Court found that the principle of parity was clearly attracted in the present case. Since the allegations, medical evidence and attributed roles were substantially similar, there appeared to be no valid reason to continue denying bail to the present applicant.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court directed that the applicant be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions.
While deciding the bail application, the High Court also carefully examined the two contradictory orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
The Court noted that while rejecting the present applicant’s bail application, the Additional Sessions Judge had relied upon the prosecution allegation that the applicant attacked the injured with a knife with the intention to kill. The trial court further observed that the applicant had been assigned a “primary role” in the occurrence and therefore held that no sufficient ground existed for granting bail.
However, the High Court noticed that less than one month later the very same Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to co-accused Anshu in the same criminal case. The later order specifically recorded the victim’s statement that both the present applicant and Anshu had arrived armed with knives and immediately attacked the victims with an intention to kill. Despite recording these observations, the trial court merely stated that sufficient grounds existed to enlarge the co-accused on bail without explaining why the reasoning adopted earlier no longer applied.
Justice Singh observed that such apparent inconsistency required examination because judicial consistency and uniform application of legal principles constitute essential components of the administration of justice. Where similarly situated accused persons receive different treatment, the record should disclose the distinguishing facts, circumstances or legal considerations justifying such differential treatment.
The High Court clarified that every bail application must undoubtedly be decided on its own facts. Nevertheless, where the allegations, attributed roles and surrounding circumstances are substantially identical, courts are expected to maintain consistency in the exercise of judicial discretion unless valid reasons exist for departing from the earlier approach.
Finding no apparent explanation for the contradictory treatment accorded to the two co-accused, the High Court directed the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad, to furnish a detailed explanation through the Registrar General of the High Court within seven days.
Justice Singh specifically directed the judicial officer to indicate the distinguishing facts, circumstances or legal considerations that weighed with the court while refusing bail to the present applicant but granting bail to the similarly placed co-accused. The explanation was required to identify the material factors which, in the judicial officer’s opinion, justified the differential treatment reflected in the two orders.
At the same time, the High Court exercised caution while issuing this direction. Justice Singh expressly clarified that the order calling for an explanation was purely administrative in nature and should not be construed as expressing any opinion regarding the correctness or legality of the judicial orders themselves. The Court emphasised that the purpose of seeking the explanation was to uphold institutional consistency and ensure confidence in the judicial process rather than to prejudge the merits of either order.
The decision highlights the broader constitutional values of equality, fairness and consistency in judicial decision-making. While reaffirming that bail remains a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on the facts of each individual case, the Allahabad High Court stressed that such discretion must be exercised in a reasoned, transparent and consistent manner. The judgment reinforces the principle that similarly situated accused should ordinarily receive similar treatment unless objective distinctions exist, thereby strengthening public confidence in the fairness and predictability of the criminal justice system.