In Sagar v. State of U.P. & Anr., the Supreme Court held that bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of parity with co-accused without assessing the specific role of the accused. The case arose from a village dispute resulting in the murder of the complainant’s father, where one accused fired the fatal shot while others allegedly instigated the act, blocked the victim’s escape, and were armed. The Court clarified that parity in bail matters relates to the role and position of the accused in the crime, not merely their inclusion in the same FIR. Accused with distinct and more serious roles cannot claim parity with others granted bail. The Court further emphasized that bail orders, though not requiring elaborate reasoning, must be reasoned and non-mechanical, as non-speaking orders violate principles of natural justice. Courts must consider factors such as gravity of the offence, nature of allegations, severity of punishment, risk of witness or evidence tampering, criminal antecedents, and prima facie involvement. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to one accused and remanded another bail order for fresh consideration with proper reasoning.