Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that after the arrest of the petitioner, the main accused Jagbir and Sunil have been granted bail in the present case vide order dated 15.10.2014, however the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground of proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. being initiated against the petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner ought to be granted bail at least on the ground of parity as the petitioner was only an instrument of witnessing the agreement for sale of office of the deceased with Jagbir Singh. In this regard a decision of this court in Bail Application No.492/2016 decided on 19.04.2016 has been referred stated therein that 'the weight of judicial authority is in favour of the principle of parity being followed'. So far as the bail application of the petitioner being declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the proceedings under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner were initiated, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this court in Bail Application No.1739/2015, decided on 26.11.2015, wherein the NBWs were issued against the applicant and proceedings under Section 82/83 were initiated against him and he was also declared proclaimed offender. In that case, this court held that since the co-accused had already been granted bail, therefore the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of parity with the co-accused in the present case. It was also revealed in that order that since the charge sheet in that case was filed and the prosecution did not seek custody of the petitioner for any further investigation in that case. Therefore, in the present case as well, the petitioner be granted bail.

12. The admitted case of both the sides is that the present case was registered in the year 2009 and the accused persons could be arrested only in the year 2014 and the petitioner had surrendered before Trial Court only on 20.02.2015 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Out of 72 witnesses, only one witness has been examined in this case. Other co-accuseds Jagbir Singh and Sunil Kumar have been granted bail in the present case. NBWs were issued against the petitioner; proceedings under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner; and the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender.

15. The petitioner has strongly relied upon the order of this Court in Bail Application No.492/2016 decided on 19.04.2016 and Bail Application No.1739/2015 decided on 26.11.2015 wherein this Court had dealt with the issue of parity to a co-accused, wherein the NBWs were issued against the applicant, proceedings under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the applicant and even he was declared as proclaimed offender and in the facts of that case the applicant was granted bail. In this regard, this Court thinks fit to reiterate the settled principle that in a criminal jurisprudence, every case stands on different footings and no straightjacket formula can be adopted in the facts of each case. No doubt, the weight of judicial parity should be followed, but on the other hand, this Court is of the conscious opinion that the word 'parity' connotes a state when a person is placed on the same footing as of the other person. This court is also of the opinion that that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail in a case where the bail applications of other co-accused whose bail applications had been allowed and are released on bail. It is purely a discretion of the court. Before granting or refusing bail, the court must satisfy itself after considering the material placed on record and further developments in the investigations or otherwise and other peculiar circumstances of each case, which show that there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. If on examination of any case, it transpires that the case of the applicant before the court is identically similar to the accused on facts and circumstances, who has been bailed out, then the desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should be also released on bail.

16. In the facts of the present case, this Court observes that undoubtedly, the petitioner had surrendered before the concerned Court on 20.02.2015 and it is only thereafter, that the charge sheet could be filed in the case. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was absconding and it is only when he came to know that the proceedings under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C. have been initiated against him, he surrendered before the concerned Court. Meaning thereby, the trial got delayed due to non-presence of the petitioner herein and there is every likelihood that the petitioner will again abscond, which may haper the trialTherefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail of the petitioner on the ground that he was declared proclaimed offender.