The decision to grant bail on the ground of parity should be examined independently in each case, considering the facts and circumstances, without a straight jacket formula or hard and fast rule.

JUDGMENT SHRI KANT TRIPATHI, J.-The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Ramu alias Sanjay Srivastava in case crime No. 55 of 2009, under sections 364, 302, 368, 34, 392 and 201 IPC, police station Kotwali, district Basti.

2. Heard Mr. D.S. Mishra for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. Mr. D.S. Mishra submitted that except the applicant remaining other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. The roles of all the accused including the applicant were almost similar. It is alleged that all the accused including the applicant assaulted the deceased and the injured persons with blunt portion of a country made pistol, fan belt and cable etc. It is not clear as to which accused was responsible for causing death of the deceased. Mr. Mishra further submitted that the applicant is in jail since long and is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mishra relied on following cases:

(i) Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh and another v. State of Gujarat;

(ii) Fida Hussain Bohra v. State of Maharashtra;

(iii) Rajesh Gandhi v. State of Jharkhand, (Crl. Appeal No. 1041/2001, arising out of SLP (Crl) 3182/2001);

(iv) Harbans Singh v. State of U.P. and others;

(v) Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra;

(vi) Shri Kishan and others v. State of U.P.;

(vii) Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky v. State of Punjab.

4. In the case of Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh and another (supra), the Apex Court granted bail to appellant on the ground of parity of bail already granted in favour of co-accused.

5. In the rase of Fida Hussain Bohra (supra), the Apex. Court found that other accused persons had been bailed out while depriving the appellant from obtaining the said benefit.

6. In the case of Rajesh Gandhi (supra), the Apex Court granted bail to the appellant on two grounds, firstly, that the charge-sheet had already been filed and co-accused persons had been granted bail and, secondly, that the High Court was not justified in refusing bail to the appellant on the ground that he was the beneficiary of the alleged conspiracy.

7. The case of Harbans Singh (supra) is hardly of any help to the applicant because it was a case in regard to quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant vis-a-vis other accused. Similar was the position in the case of Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed (supra). '

8. In the case of Shri Kishan and others (supra), the Apex Court found that there was no material to show as to who gave fatal blow, therefore, conviction was changed from 302/34 I PC to 325/34 IPC.

9. In the case of Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky (supra), the Apex Court propounded the principle that where two views of the story are probable, the one that is contended by the accused should be accepted.

10. The learned Counsel for the applicant placing reliance on the aforesaid cases, submitted that when co-accused persons playing similar roles have already been enlarged, there is no reason to deny bail to the applicant.

11. In the aforesaid cases, no law appears to have been laid down regarding grant of bail to the co-accused invariably only on the ground of parity.

12. The learned AGA, in reply, submitted that the cases of the applicant and the co-accused persons are not at par. The applicant is named in the FIR and happens to be the main person under whom the deceased used to serve. The dead body of the deceased was also recovered from the house of the applicant. The applicant is the maternal brother of the deceased. A charge of misappropriating forty eight-forty nine lac rupees belonging to the applicant was allegedly made by the applicant and other accused and for this reason they kidnapped the deceased and two others in an Alto Car and brought them in the applicant's rice mill where the deceased and two injured were mercilessly beaten by them.

When the condition of the deceased became critical, he was brought from the rice mill to the house of the applicant where he died. The learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document