2021 (1) TMI 1304 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - Principles of parity - as per the FIR, the petitioner Kalyan Singh was allegedly armed with a knife but it is apparent from the injury reports of the injured Om Prakash and Thakara Ram that no injury whatsoever was caused to anyone by a sharp weapon - HELD THAT - As per Section 439 Cr.PC., the Sessions Court as well as the High Court while considering the bail application/s of arrested accused have concurrent jurisdiction. Needless to say that while considering bail applications of similarly situated accused persons, parity has to be maintained and it should be ensured that unless any distinguishable feature or any special circumstance is in existence, the bail of a subsequently arrested accused on same footing should not be dismissed when other/s with similar allegation/s have been extended indulgence of bail. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer, while rejecting the bail application of the petitioners by order dated 23.12.2020, referred to his own order dated 05.09.2020 whereby, the bail application of Swaroop Singh was rejected. However, the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by this Court whereby, Swaroop Singh whose case stands on the same footing as the petitioners, was admitted to bail was conveniently omitted. This indicates the gross disregard of this Court s order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Barmer. The approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in denying bail to the petitioners even though similarly situated accused has been granted bail in the very same case is deprecated as such an approach not only tantamounts to a total disregard of this Court s order but also increases this Court s dockets flooding it with unwarranted bail applications and also prolongs the custody of the accused without any justification. It is henceforth expected from all the Subordinate Courts in the State of Rajasthan that where similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by this Court and the bail application of other accused comes up for consideration, this Court s order/s shall not only be referred to while deciding such bail application/s but shall be followed unless exceptional/distinguishable features exist. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely Khet Singh S/o Lal Singh and Kalyan Singh S/o Lal Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.221/2020, Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer shall be released on bail, subject to the compliance with the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for accused in custody for offenses under Sections 458, 323, 354, 504, and 509/34 IPC; Discrepancy in bail decisions between co-accused; Failure to consider High Court's bail order by Additional Sessions Judge; Judicial discipline in maintaining bail decisions consistency.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the accused in custody for various offenses under IPC sections. The court noted that the role attributed to the petitioners and a co-accused was almost identical, with one petitioner allegedly armed with a knife. However, no injuries from a sharp weapon were reported. The bail application of the co-accused was initially rejected but later accepted by the High Court. The bail application of the petitioners was rejected by the Presiding Officer, who failed to refer to the High Court's order granting bail to the co-accused.

The judgment emphasized the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the High Court in considering bail applications for arrested accused. It stressed the importance of maintaining parity and ensuring that similarly situated accused are treated equally unless distinguishable features exist. The court highlighted the necessity of referring to and respecting the High Court's bail orders by lower courts to maintain judicial discipline and consistency in bail decisions.

The court criticized the Additional Sessions Judge for disregarding the High Court's bail order and denying bail to the petitioners despite a co-accused being granted bail in the same case. Such an approach was deemed unacceptable as it disregarded the High Court's decision, unnecessarily burdened the court with additional bail applications, and prolonged the accused's custody without justification. The judgment set a precedent for all subordinate courts in Rajasthan to refer to and follow the High Court's bail orders unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Conclusively, the bail application of the petitioners was accepted, and they were ordered to be released on bail upon fulfilling specified conditions. Each petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond and surety bonds, with the obligation to appear before the trial court as needed.