In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court addressed the nuanced application of the principle of parity in bail considerations, emphasizing that such decisions must be grounded in the specific roles and allegations against each accused individual. The division bench, comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar, underscored that parity cannot be applied mechanically without a thorough examination of the factual circumstances and the distinct roles attributed to the accused parties.
The case in question involved an appellant seeking bail under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, following the rejection of his plea by the Sessions Court. The appellant had been in judicial custody since May 20, 2023, and argued that the prolonged duration of his detention warranted bail. Furthermore, he contended that since two co-accused individuals had been granted bail by a coordinate bench, he was entitled to the same relief based on the principle of parity.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, highlighting that the appellant's involvement was markedly different from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail. Specifically, while the co-accused were alleged to have utilized the services of the victims, the appellant was directly implicated in the trafficking of two minor victims, one of whom remained untraceable. This distinction in roles was pivotal in assessing the applicability of parity in granting bail.
The High Court, in its deliberation, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, which articulated that the principle of parity requires a careful evaluation of the totality of circumstances before granting bail. The Supreme Court had observed that merely stating that another accused has been granted bail is insufficient; the court must scrutinize every aspect, including the nature and gravity of the alleged offenses and the specific roles of the accused. The High Court echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that a simplistic application of parity, without considering the individual roles and allegations, does not meet the standards of judicial prudence.
In the present case, the court noted that the appellant's direct involvement in the trafficking of minors set him apart from the co-accused who had been granted bail. The court also took into account that five out of nine charge-sheeted witnesses had already been examined, indicating that the trial was progressing and nearing conclusion. Additionally, the testimony of one of the trafficked children directly implicated the appellant, further substantiating the prosecution's claims.
Considering these factors, the High Court concluded that granting bail to the appellant, based solely on the principle of parity, was unwarranted. The court underscored that each bail application must be assessed on its own merits, with due consideration given to the specific allegations and the roles of the accused individuals. The principle of parity, while a recognized judicial tenet, cannot override the necessity for a detailed and individualized examination of each case.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that bail decisions are not made in a capricious manner but are instead rooted in a comprehensive analysis of the facts and circumstances unique to each case. It highlights the imperative for courts to move beyond a superficial application of parity and to engage in a meticulous evaluation of the specific roles and allegations against each accused, thereby upholding the integrity of judicial proceedings and the principles of justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.