The discretion of the judge in granting bail and the need for a cumulative assessment of circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

1. The petitioners, 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 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioners' counsel has drawn attention of this court to the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in CRM-M-53400-2021 (Annexure P-7), vide which the co-accused was granted bail by this court. Counsel for petitioners claim bail on the grounds of parity and does not press on merits. Petitioners' counsel further submits that matter has been compromised between the parties.

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

REASONING:

5. A brief narration of allegations levelled against the petitioners, which are relevant for deciding the present petition, is that the petitioners along with a group of 8-9 other boys gave blow of bottle of liquor on the head of the complainant. Some of them also hit him with bricks and snatched Rs.10,000/- from him.

6. Perusal of the order dated 10.01.2022 vide which co-accused was granted bail covers petitioners' case on the grounds of parity for the reasons that they are identically placed. As per paragraph 6 of the petition petitioner no.1 is in custody from 16.09.2022 and petitioner no. 2 from 15.10.2022. It is appropriate to reproduce paragraph 8 of this order, which is as under:

'8. Considering the age of the petitioners to be just 18 and 20 years, which is a reformative age, coupled with the fact that the petitioners are first offenders and have no criminal past, this Court is of the view that the petitioners deserve the concession of bail.'

7. 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 petitioners who seek enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioners 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 g