The Principle of Parity in bail applications requires careful consideration of the specific roles and allegations against the accused, rather than a simplistic comparison with co-accused.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 325 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, whereby and where under prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected for the offence registered under Section under Section 370(4)/34 of the I.P.C in connection with S.T. Case No. 46 of 2024 arising out of Mahuadanr P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 404 of 2023.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 20.05.2023 and still the trial has not been concluded.

3. It has further been contended on behalf of the appellant that two other co-accused namely Amit Bansal and Virendra Kumar Gupa have been directed to be released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 363 of 2024 vide order dated 02.05.2024 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 52 of 2024 vide order dated 18.04.2024 respectively.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case where interference is needed in the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, learned P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for interfering with the impugned order, reason being that appellant is making a new case of non-conclusion of trial, which point has not been raised before the concerned Court.

6. Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that out of 9 charge-sheeted witnesses, 5 witnesses have been examined and the trial is likely to be concluded in the near future.

7. Learned P.P. has further submitted that the cases of the two co-accused, who have been directed to be released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court is different from the case of the appellant, since, against them the allegation was only that they were taking the services of the victims while the allegation against the present appellant is that he is the person instrumental in carrying/ trafficking the two children and as such, Principle of Parity cannot be said to be applicable herein. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of allegation and further one of the victim has not been traced out, it is not a fit case where interference is needed with the impugned order.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the findings rendered by the learned Court in the impugned order as also the case diary, based upon the materials so collected during course of investigation.

9. The fact about the custody and the Principle of Parity has been taken as ground for interfering with the impugned order.

10. There is no dispute that the Principle of Parity is made applicable in the matter of bail also but while applying the Principle of Parity the factual aspect and nature of allegation from whom the parity is sought for needs to be examined.

11. As would appear from the orders of the Court allowing the prayer for bail of the co-accused by quashing the order of the concerned court that the co-accused who were directed to be released on bail were not at all involved in the matter of trafficking attracting the ingredients of the offence under Section 370 of the IPC while against the appellant there is allegation of direct overt act being instrumental in trafficking the two minor victims, one of whom is still traceless.

12. Therefore, the Principle of Parity cannot to be applicable in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC Online SC 1486 wherein it has been held as under:

“18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the princ