The principle of parity in bail applications mandates that if a co-accused is granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to other accused in the same case.

Headnote:
[BAIL] - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] - The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, finding that his case was indistinguishable from that of a co-accused who had previously been granted bail. The court emphasized the principle of parity in bail applications, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to similar relief based on the circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a third bail application while in custody for serious charges under various sections of the IPC and the Arms Act. His previous bail application had been rejected, but a co-accused was granted bail in a similar situation.
Finding of the Court:

The court noted that the learned Public Prosecutor could not distinguish the petitioner's case from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail. The court found the circumstances of both cases to be identical.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the previous bail granted to a co-accused in a similar case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of parity in bail applications, concluding that if a co-accused is granted bail under similar circumstances, the same relief should be extended to the petitioner.
Result: The court allowed the third bail application, ordering the release of the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Defect pointed out by the office is overruled.

2. The present 3rd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.106/2017, Police Station Pratapnagar, District Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 384/149 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner by this Court on 24.08.2020, the co-accused Jagdeep @ Jagga has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2021 and the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of the co-accused who has already been released on bail by this Court.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application but he is unable to distinguish the case of the present petitioner vis-a-vis the case of the co-accused person who has been enlarged on bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced and considering the fact that the case of the present petitioner is identical to co-accused aforesaid who has been enlarged on bail by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

7. Consequently, the 3rd bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Vishnu Vishnoi S/o Sh. Sangram Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.106/2017, Police Station Pratapnagar, District Jodhpur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document