ORDER

Leave granted.

1. The above appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, cancelling the regular bail granted to the appellant by the Sessions Court, Indore, in an application registered suo moto by the High Court under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The fact remains that the appellant was implicated in a criminal complaint registered on 21.1.2020 for alleged offences punishable under section 9 read with section 2(16)(c), 9, 27, 29, 51, 52 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and section 2(d), 5, 15, 16 of M.P. Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1969 and section 7, 55, 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

3. After the appellant’s anticipatory bail application was rejected, the appellant was arrested on 6.6.2022. After the arrest, the investigation qua the appellant was completed and a supplementary charge sheet was filed against him on 3.8.2022.

4. Thereafter, the Session Court granted regular bail to the appellant by an order dated 5.9.2022, taking into account the fact that the appellant has already spent three months in custody and that the charge sheet has already been filed. The Sessions Court also took note of the fact that the co-accused have been released on bail.

5. After about a month of the release of the appellant on regular bail by the Sessions Court, the High Court passed order dated 18.10.2022, directing the registration of suo moto application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the co-accused were released on bail after completion of one year in custody and that, therefore, the release of the appellant just after completion of three months was not proper. On the application registered suo moto, the High Court passed the order impugned in the above appeal, cancelling the bail granted to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is before us.

6. As we have stated earlier, the appellant was taken into custody on 6.6.2022, after his anticipatory bail plea was rejected. The prosecution completed the investigation qua the appellant and filed supplementary charge sheet on 3.8.2022. It is only thereafter that the Sessions Court granted bail to the appellant.

7. The Sessions Court cited four reasons for granting regular bail to the appellant. They are: (1) that the appellant has already spent three months in custody; (2) that charges have been framed and trial has began; (3) no seizure from the applicant, and (4) that the co-accused have been released on bail.

8. Instead of appreciating that the bail granted by the Sessions Court was on four grounds, the High Court went on hyper-technicality to find out how much time the co-accused spent in custody before being released.

9. ‘Parity’ in that sense could not be understood in a hyper-technical way to mean the number of years, months, days and hours that the co-accused spent, for deciding whether another accused should be granted bail or not. Once the charge sheet is filed and the co-accused released on bail, the only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the continued detention of one accused was necessary despite the release of the co-accused.

10. Instead of appreciating the issue from the above perspective, the High Court went on a wrong approach and cancelled the bail granted to the appellant. Therefore, the order is flawed and liable to be set aside.

11. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if he has been taken into custody, pursuant to the impugned order.

12. However, the appellant shall cooperate in the trial.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.