The principle of parity in bail matters is not an absolute rule for granting release; it requires judicial consistency, meaning that if a similarly situated co-accused has been denied bail by superior courts, such denial acts as a relevant factor against the applicant unless distinguishable circumstances are proven.

JUDGMENT :

PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.156/2022 registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 143, 302 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the FIR has been registered after a delay of 06 hours as an afterthought. Additionally, it is contended that as per the seizure memo one country made pistol having a bore of 9 mm was alleged to be seized at the instance of the petitioner but as per the armour report the bore of the pistol was found 7.65 mm thereby casting doubts on the prosecution story.

He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since01.07.2022 and after the submission of the charge-sheet only 18 witnesses out of 28 witnesses have been examined so far, which violates constitutional rights of the petitioner about the speedy trial due to prolonged incarceration.

He again submits that although the bail of the co-accused-Yogendra Singh has been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but it is established law that the parity can be ground for grant of bail but not for rejection. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Kunhayammed and Ors. v State of Kerala and Anr. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 and

(ii) Sobha Ram v State of U.P. reported in 1991 SCC OnLine All 745

It is thus prayed that trial is likely to take considerable time, and continued custody would serve no fruitful purpose. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the instant bail application and submitted that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR along with other accused and the same was lodged promptly, without undue delay. It is apparent from the material available on record that the deceased Pradeep has died due to gunshot injury inflicted by the petitioner- Vishal which is corroborated by the recovery of the weapon at his instance and supported by testimony of eye-witnesses during the trial which indicates the active involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of a heinous offence of murder as one of the principal offenders.

It is further submitted that although the petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2022 but the benefit of bail on the basis of long incarceration cannot be extended to him in the backdrop of Section 479 of BNSS which excludes the offence for which the punishment of life imprisonment or death has been specified. Additionally, one criminal antecedent is pending against the petitioner.

It is also pointed out that the bail of similarly situated co-accused Yogendra Singh has already been considered and rejected upto the level of the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

5. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the record, it prima facie indicates the active involvement of the petitioner in the homicidal death of deceased Pradeep coupled with the fact that he is not only specifically named in the FIR but also