The Supreme Court has refused to grant bail to Rajendra Prasad, observing that the fact that co-accused have been released on bail does not automatically entitle another accused to similar relief.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu passed the order on August 18, 2026, while dealing with a challenge to the Bombay High Court at Goa’s rejection of Prasad’s second bail application.
Background Of The Case
The case arose from an FIR registered at Old Goa Police Station in August 2023 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Prasad was arrested on August 29, 2023 and was subsequently chargesheeted as Accused No. 1. He is facing trial before the District and Sessions Court, Merces, Tiswadi, North Goa.
According to the prosecution, the case relates to an alleged conspiracy arising from a family and property dispute. The prosecution alleged that the victim was brought to Prasad’s rented residence on the pretext of providing painting work and was thereafter allegedly confined and assaulted before the body was allegedly disposed of in the Gaundalim river.
Prasad sought bail primarily on the ground of parity, pointing out that two co-accused had already been granted bail. His counsel also relied on his prolonged incarceration and argued that the trial had made limited progress.
Supreme Court’s Observation
The State opposed bail, arguing that Prasad’s alleged role was distinct and more specific and that his release could affect the fair conduct of the trial, particularly because certain material witnesses were known to him.
The Supreme Court rejected the parity argument. It explained that bail granted to one accused does not automatically become a ground for granting bail to another.
“Parity is not a mechanical mathematical formula; it must be assessed based on the specific role attributed to each accused in the factual matrix.”
The Court noted that, prima facie, the material on record attributed a specific role to the petitioner. However, it clarified that it was avoiding detailed observations so that neither side’s case was prejudiced during the ongoing trial.
Incarceration And Trial Progress
The Court also declined to grant bail solely because Prasad had spent nearly three years in custody. It noted that the trial had already commenced, with one of the proposed 62 prosecution witnesses examined. At the same time, the Bench acknowledged the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial.
The Sessions Court was encouraged to record the evidence of eight sensitive witnesses, out of turn, within one year from communication of the order.The Court also granted liberty to Prasad to approach the appropriate forum afresh for bail if those testimonies are completed earlier or are not recorded within the stipulated period, subject to his cooperation with the trial.
Decision
The Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Rajendra Prasad on the ground of parity and disposed of the special leave petition on the stated terms.
It clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail proceedings and would not be treated as findings on the merits of the criminal case.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad v. State of Goa & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9754 of 2026
Judge: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Decision Date: August 18, 2026
 and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) Constables-300x169.webp)
