The Allahabad High Court recently emphasized that parity alone is not a valid ground for granting bail when the earlier order relied on incorrect or incomplete facts. In a case where the appellant had been charged with multiple serious offences including under Sections 396 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, the court rejected his plea for bail despite his reliance on a coordinate bench judgment that had granted bail to another accused, Farman.
The appellant’s counsel contended that because Farman had been granted bail under similar circumstances, parity demanded that the same benefit be extended. However, the State pointed out that in Farman’s case, the chargesheet had not been filed for a long period, which formed the basis of the bail order. In contrast, the present matter involved a chargesheet already filed and grave offences such as the killing of four persons and grievous injuries to another. Moreover, the court observed that Farman’s bail order was obtained by withholding material facts, rendering that decision inapplicable by mere parity.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh held that a judge is not bound to follow parity when the earlier order is founded on erroneous facts or where material distinctions exist. The court invoked the Supreme Court’s precedent in Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. to underscore that wrongful facts or concealment in a prior bail order breaks the applicability of parity. Given the gravity of the offences and the factual distinctions from the earlier bail grant, the High Court declined to extend bail to the appellant. In so holding, the court reaffirmed that parity is not an absolute principle; it must yield where the earlier decision is tainted by factual or legal infirmities or where the present case differs critically.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.