Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.21 seconds)Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tarun Kumar vs Assistant Director Directorate Of ... on 11 October, 2023
33. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed in the
aforesaid judgment, i.e., Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement (supra) that it is axiomatic that
the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive
equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in
favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong
order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for
10
repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for
passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to
perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a
benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by
any authority or by the court, without legal basis or
justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right
the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.
The Arms Act, 1959
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Makwana ... on 20 April, 2021
34. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot
exercise its power in a capricious manner and has to consider
the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only
simply saying that another accused has been granted bail is
not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on
the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this
regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai
Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been
held as under:
Mitthu Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. on 15 July, 2019
It can be stated with absolute
11
certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the
impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014
SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-
application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has
been brought on record that the second respondent has
been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other
heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note
of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of
extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount
to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside."
Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 22 October, 2020
Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh
Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on
22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of
Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as
the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar
role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to
Vanraj Koli (A16) on the ground that he was armed with a
wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A10), Kheta
(A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with
sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently
misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by
parity. 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. The High Court has
proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic
assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass
muster under the law."