Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Robbery Accused After Nearly Three Years’ Custody; Holds Prior Cases Cannot Defeat Parity With Similarly Placed Co-Accused
Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Robbery Accused; Holds Recovery and Alleged Role Similar to Bailed Co-Accused Justified Parity Despite Criminal Antecedents
Facts
The petitioner, Neeraj, sought regular bail in FIR No. 636/2023 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh for offences under Sections 120B, 395, 412, 397 and 34 IPC.
According to the prosecution, on 30 September 2023, three persons committed robbery by snatching the complainant’s money bag after a country-made pistol was brandished. The specific role attributed to Neeraj was that he was driving the motorcycle, while the other two accused were riding pillion.
Neeraj had remained in custody since 16 October 2023, and his counsel pointed out that even charges had not been framed by the time his bail application was heard. He also claimed parity with co-accused Sagar, who allegedly had a similar role and had been granted bail by the Delhi High Court on 13 July 2026.
Issues
The principal issue was whether Neeraj was entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Sagar.
The Court also had to consider whether Neeraj’s previous criminal involvements were sufficient to distinguish his case from Sagar’s and deny him parity.
A related question was whether recovery of part of the robbed money and a mobile phone allegedly purchased from the robbed money materially differentiated Neeraj from Sagar.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Neeraj argued that he had remained incarcerated since 16 October 2023 and that even charges had not yet been framed, demonstrating substantial pre-trial incarceration.
His principal submission was based on parity.
He contended that co-accused Sagar, whose alleged role was similar to his, had already been granted bail by the Delhi High Court on 13 July 2026. Therefore, there was no justification for treating Neeraj differently.
He further benefited from the admitted position that the country-made pistol had been brandished by co-accused Vinod, and not by Neeraj or Sagar.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State ultimately acknowledged that there was parity between Neeraj and co-accused Sagar as regards their role in the alleged offence.
However, the prosecution attempted to distinguish Neeraj on the basis of his previous criminal involvements.
The Court was informed that Neeraj was already on bail in those previous cases.
The State further argued that part of the robbed amount had been recovered from Neeraj along with a mobile phone allegedly purchased using the robbed money. It was also pointed out that the motorcycle used in the offence was stolen.
Analysis of the Law
The judgment turns primarily on the principle of parity in bail.
Parity requires the Court to compare the actual role, allegations and material circumstances of the applicant with those of the co-accused who has already received bail.
The Court found three significant factors demonstrating parity between Neeraj and Sagar.
First, neither Neeraj nor Sagar was alleged to have brandished the country-made pistol. That role was specifically attributed to co-accused Vinod.
Second, the prosecution itself admitted that there was parity between Neeraj and Sagar, subject only to its objection concerning Neeraj’s previous involvements.
Third, although part of the robbed amount was allegedly recovered from Neeraj, part of the robbed amount had also been recovered from Sagar. Thus, the recovery relied upon by the prosecution did not create a meaningful distinction between the two accused.
Effect of Criminal Antecedents
The State sought to distinguish Neeraj because of his previous criminal cases.
However, both sides accepted that Neeraj was already on bail in those cases. The Court did not regard those antecedents as sufficient, in the circumstances of this case, to deprive him of parity with Sagar.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not cite or analyse any reported precedent concerning bail, parity, criminal antecedents or prolonged incarceration.
The Court decided the bail application directly by comparing Neeraj’s role and circumstances with those of co-accused Sagar.
Therefore, the legal significance of the decision lies in its factual application of the parity principle, rather than in laying down or applying a detailed precedent-based test.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that Neeraj could not fairly be denied parity with Sagar.
The person alleged to have brandished the country-made pistol was Vinod, not Neeraj or Sagar. Thus, the more serious weapon-related role did not distinguish Neeraj from the co-accused who had already received bail.
The prosecution’s reliance on recovery also failed to establish a meaningful distinction. Although part of the robbed money was allegedly recovered from Neeraj, a part of the robbed amount had similarly been recovered from Sagar.
The State’s remaining distinction was Neeraj’s previous involvement in other cases. But since he was already on bail in those cases, the Court did not consider that circumstance sufficient to override the otherwise established parity.
Accordingly, the Court expressly held that Neeraj “cannot be denied parity with co-accused Sagar” who had already been granted bail.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed Neeraj’s regular bail application.
The Court held that his alleged role was materially comparable to co-accused Sagar, who had already been granted bail. Neither was alleged to have brandished the pistol, and part of the robbed amount had been recovered from both.
Neeraj was ordered to be released on a personal bond of ₹20,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
As an additional safeguard, the Court directed that Neeraj must not contact any prosecution witness in any manner whatsoever.
Case Details
Case: Neeraj (Through Pairokar) v. The State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 3529/2026; CNR No. DLHC010400902026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 25 August 2026
Result: Bail granted. Neeraj was granted parity with co-accused Sagar and ordered to be released on a ₹20,000 personal bond with one surety, subject to the condition that he not contact prosecution witnesses
