The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the judge in granting bail, the entitlement to bail for non-bailable offences, and the imposition of stringent conditions to address concerns such as influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 16 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel has drawn attention of this court to the order dated 11.11.2022 passed in CRM-M-42396-2022 (Annexure P-2), vide which the co-accused was granted bail by this court. Counsel for petitioner claims bail on the grounds of parity and does not press on merits.

4. State does not dispute the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are more severe than co accused who was granted bail.

REASONING:

5. The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with other co accused kidnapped the petitioner and gave beatings to him. As per paragraph 13 of the petition the petitioner is in custody since 25.06.2022. Perusal of the order dated 11.11.2022 vide which co accused was granted bail covers petitioner's case on the grounds of parity for the reasons that they are identically placed. It is appropriate to reproduce paragraph 6 of this order, which is as under:-

'6. As per paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2022. Given the nature of allegations, and injuries inflicted by the petitioner, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct.'

6. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In GudikantiNarasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerat