{"id":254784,"date":"2021-09-28T10:00:53","date_gmt":"2021-09-28T04:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=254784"},"modified":"2021-09-30T18:20:08","modified_gmt":"2021-09-30T12:50:08","slug":"bail-man-with-serious-allegations-against-him-cannot-claim-parity-with-a-woman-jailed-with-an-infant-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/28\/bail-man-with-serious-allegations-against-him-cannot-claim-parity-with-a-woman-jailed-with-an-infant-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Bail| Man with serious allegations against him cannot claim parity with a woman jailed with an infant: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: In a case where a man was allegedly murdered by his wife and colleague, the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud<\/strong>* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has refused to grant bail to the colleague on the ground that he cannot claim parity with the co-accused, i.e. the wife of the deceased, who was granted bail on the ground that she had a child of eleven months with her in jail. The Court noticed that the allegations in the FIR and the material that has emerged from the investigation indicated that a major role has been attributed to him in the murder of the deceased and hence, no bail was warranted.<\/p>\n

Three important rulings on principles governing grant of bail<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudharshan Singh,<\/span><\/em> (2002) 3 SCC 598<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n

\u201cGrant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Some of the considerations for grant of bail are:<\/p>\n

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.<\/p>\n

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.<\/p>\n

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.<\/p>\n

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.\u201d<\/p>\n

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee<\/span><\/em>, (2010) 14 SCC 496<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;<\/li>\n
  2. nature and gravity of the accusation;<\/li>\n
  3. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;<\/li>\n
  4. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;<\/li>\n
  5. character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;<\/li>\n
  6. likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and<\/li>\n
  7. danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana,<\/span><\/em> 2021 (6) SCC 230<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

    Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance.<\/p>\n

    Read more: \u201cConsent of parties cannot obviate the duty of the High Court to indicate its reasons\u201d; Supreme Court explains the law on Bail<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

    [Mahadev Meena v. Raveen Rathod, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 804<\/b><\/a>, decided on 27.09.2021]<\/p>\n

    ___________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

    Counsels:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    For appellant: Advocate Chitrangda Rastravara<\/p>\n

    For first respondent: Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave<\/p>\n

    \n

    *Judgment by: Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Know Thy Judge| Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n