9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to bail on the ground of parity. 2. Obligation to disclose previous rejection of co-accused's bail application. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Bail on the Ground of Parity: The primary issue addressed is whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of parity by moving a second or third bail application when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail by another judge without disclosing the fact that a similar application had been previously rejected. The court examined various precedents and principles to determine the validity of granting bail based on parity. The judgment highlights that the principle of parity alone cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. Each case must be examined individually, considering the specific facts and circumstances. The court emphasized the need for consistency in judicial decisions but clarified that consistency should not override the individual assessment of each case. The court referred to several cases, including: - Ram Roop v. State of U.P. 1987 UP Crl. Rulings 30: This case observed that if a co-accused with a similar role is granted bail, the applicant should also be granted bail. - Sobha Ram v. State of U.P. 1992 All Crl. Cases 59: It was observed that it is not obligatory for the counsel of an applicant to indicate that the application of a co-accused had been rejected. - Sanwal Das Gupta v. State of U.P. 1986 (23) Alld. Crl. Cases 79: The court noted that if bail is granted to a co-accused, the magistrate can admit the co-accused to bail to maintain parity. - Kesho Ram v. State of Assam AIR 1978 SC 1095: The Supreme Court observed that refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing the accused before conviction. The judgment also discussed the principle of consistency in judicial decisions, as seen in Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 109, where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for consistency in sentencing. The court concluded that while parity is a significant factor, it cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. The court must consider the nature and gravity of the offense, the position and status of the accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice, repeating the offense, jeopardizing their own life, tampering with witnesses, and the history of the case and its investigation. 2. Obligation to Disclose Previous Rejection of Co-Accused's Bail Application: The second issue addressed is whether it is necessary for an accused to disclose in their bail application that a co-accused's bail application had been previously rejected. The court held that it is not necessary for an accused to state in their application that the bail application of a co-accused had been rejected previously. The court reasoned that the prior rejection of a co-accused's bail application does not preclude the court from granting bail to another accused whose case has not been considered at the earlier occasion. The court emphasized that each bail application must be assessed on its own merits and the specific facts presented. Conclusion: The court answered the referred questions by stating that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail, even at the stage of second or third bail applications. The court must satisfy itself that there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail based on more materials, further developments, and different considerations. Additionally, it is not necessary for an accused to disclose in their bail application that a co-accused's bail application had been previously rejected. The case was sent back to the single bench for the disposal of the bail application with these answers.
|
