The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a cumulative assessment of circumstances justifying bail, the discretion of the judge to exercise bail decisions judiciously, and the need to balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial when imposing bail conditions.

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 9 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel has drawn attention of this court to bail order of similarly placed co-accused CRM-M-33571-2022 passed 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 not more severe than co accused who was granted bail.

REASONING:

5. The petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2022. Perusal of the order dated 23.08.2022 vide which similarly placed 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.

' 6. The allegations clearly reveal that it was the complainant party who had chased the accused. Thus it is improbable to say with certainty about who was the aggressor. They may have acted in the right of their private defence. Thus, a primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, injuries inflicted by the petitioner, and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 6 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.'

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 considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised ju