Summary
The complainant's son was stabbed to death in daylight in Kasganj by seven named assailants and suffered eight injuries around the neck and chest. The Allahabad High Court bailed the second respondent purely on parity with bailed co-accused, though this Court had since set aside one of those bail orders for ignoring the gravity of the offence. The Supreme Court allowed the complainant's appeal. With the basis for parity gone and no relevant feature considered, the order could not stand. Even under parity, a court must set out the facts and explain why the cases are alike. Custody since 2019 and a clean record did not outweigh a grave crime, especially as the accused was named in the FIR, had absconded until he surrendered, and the eye-witnesses had not yet testified. He was ordered to surrender, with liberty to seek bail later.
Issues
- Whether bail granted to an accused in a murder case solely on parity with co-accused can stand once this Court has set aside the bail order on which parity rested.
- Whether custody for over a year and the absence of criminal antecedents justified bail despite the gravity of the offence.
Provisions considered
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A bail order must reflect relevant considerations: the gravity of the offence, the role and conduct of the accused, and the stage of trial. Parity requires reasons showing that the cases are identical. (¶¶ 12, 14, 16, 17)
- Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860A brutal daylight murder by several assailants with sharp weapons was a grave charge that weighed heavily against bail before the eye-witnesses had been examined. (¶¶ 3, 15, 17)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaPersonal liberty must be balanced against the public interest in holding those accused of serious crimes to account. A bare reference to Article 21 does not justify bail (Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar). (¶ 13)
Held
- The High Court granted bail only because co-accused had been granted bail. One of those orders had been set aside by this Court for ignoring relevant considerations, so the basis of the impugned order was knocked out. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- That the co-accused did not properly contest the earlier appeal did not dilute this Court's ruling. Even a parity-based order must set out the relevant facts and explain why the cases are identical, and the impugned order did neither. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Custody since 2019 and a clean record did not make out a case for bail given the seriousness of the crime. The second respondent was named in the FIR, had absconded until he surrendered, and the prosecution case was not, prima facie, fanciful. (¶ 17)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's order granting bail was set aside and the second respondent was directed to surrender forthwith, with liberty to apply for bail afresh at an appropriate stage. No view was expressed on the merits.