New Delhi, Dec. 2 -- Emphasising that the principle "bail is the rule and jail, an exception," does not entitle all accused to automatic relief, the Supreme Court has held that courts must also weigh the specific role of each accused, the gravity of the alleged offence, and its impact on society before granting bail. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh further held that parity alone cannot be the sole basis for granting bail, underlining that role and position in crime matter more than mere common involvement. It further stressed that bail orders must contain reasons, and cannot be passed mechanically or solely on the principle of parity. "Bail has often been stated to be the rule, and jail, the exception. This cannot be emphasized enough. At the same time, this, however, does not mean that the relief of bail is to be granted without due regard to the circumstances involved in the alleged offence for which the accused person has been arrested. In this regard, it has to be noted that a court, while granting bail, has to consider a number of aspects," declared the bench. Referring to earlier rulings, the court clarified that multiple aspects must be considered while exercising bail jurisdiction, as it set aside bail orders issued by the Allahabad high court to two accused in a murder case from Uttar Pradesh. The court noted that the high court had granted bail to one of the accused in this case only on the ground of parity, without examining his alleged role in instigating the murder. Citing the decision in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs Vishanbhai Makwana (2021), the bench explained that parity can be claimed only when the accused stands in a similar position in terms of conduct and responsibility, not merely because they are involved in the same incident. "The requirement of 'position' is not met only by involvement in the same offence. Position means the role of the person in the crime. Someone who fired a weapon or swung a machete will stand differently from someone who was merely part of a crowd," added the bench. The case concerned the murder of a man called Sonveer on June 28, 2024. According to the FIR, naming six people - Rajveer, Suresh, Aditya, Prince, Saurav, and Bijendra, the incident stemmed from a verbal altercation between the victim and the accused. The court recorded that Rajveer allegedly threatened the complainant's family, prompting Suresh to instigate Aditya to shoot. Rajveer's earlier bail applications were rejected twice by the trial court. However, on January 3, 2025, the high court granted bail on the ground of parity. Calling the reasoning "plainly erroneous", the top court set aside the high court order and directed Rajveer to surrender within two weeks. In a connected appeal, the bench also quashed the high court's December 18, 2024 order granting bail to co-accused Prince, noting that although the order ran into four pages, it contained no substantive reasoning, except a bare reference to some earlier judgments of the apex court. "Clearly, the high court, in the impugned order, has been unable to assign reasons, even briefly. As such, the order impugned is set aside and the question of bail to Prince is remanded to the high court to be considered afresh, keeping in view the gravity of the offence," ordered the bench....