The court held that the trial court had not erred in granting bail to the respondent on the basis of parity with a co-accused who had only general and omnibus allegations against him.

1

Signed by: SUMATHI

Signing time: 20-12-

2023 17:28:01

Signature Not Verified

Heard and perused the record.

This order shall govern the disposal of the applicant's application filed

under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail.

2 . The present application has been filed under Section 439(2) of

Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by Eighth

Additional Sessions & Special Judge (OAW), Indore in ST No.436/2023 in

connection with FIR Number/Crime No.272/2023 of Police Station Rajendra

Nagar, District Indore for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC,

1860 and Section 3&4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, whereby respondent

No.1 has been granted bail.

3. In brief, the contentions of the application are that the respondent no.1

is the husband of the deceased, and due to his cruelty and harassment the

deceased committed suicide. Hence, the police has registered the FIR against

the respondent and co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant has

submitted that the learned trial Court by its impugned order, ignoring the legal

pronouncements and other facts & circumstances of the case, granted bail to

respondent no.1 on the basis of parity with co-accused Jawahar S/o Goraldas

Chandawni, whereas the bail of co-accused Jawahar was granted on the very

specific ground that there are only general and omnibus allegations against him.

It is also submitted that the main allegations are against respondent no.1, the

husband of the deceased, and this Court has also assumed him as the main

accused.

4. Counsel further contended that in the order dated 24.0.2023 passed in

M.Cr.C. No.30234/2023, the primary allegations are directly against respondent

no.1, hence there is no ground of parity. It is also submitted that after being

released from the jail the respondent would try to influence the trial by

2

Signed by: SUMATHI

Signing time: 20-12-

2023 17:28:01

Signature Not Verified

threatening the present applicant and would misuse his liberty. In view of the

aforesaid, it is a fit case for cancellation of bail, therefore, counsel requested to

set aside the bail order in the interest of justice.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 opposing the

contentions of the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail order cannot

be cancelled only on superficial and mechanical reasons and there should be

some specific grounds to cancell the bail application. Respondent No.2 has

neither misused the liberty nor tried to influence the prosecution witnesses. He

has been granted bail by the trial Court not only on the basis of parity but also

on other grounds. Therefore, counsel prayed for rejection of the present

application.

6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid pleadings and rival contentions the

question for determination is as to whether order passed by the learned trial

Court regarding grant of bail is liable to be cancelled.

7. Before dwelling upon the contentions, here it is pertinent to mention

that after filing of this application, this Court has called for explanations from

the learned Sessions Judge with regard to parity in granting bail. In reply,

learned Sessions Judge, explaining her bail order, submitted that in this case

after completing investigation, chargesheet was filed, the respondent no.1 has

already completed sufficient period in custody and he was not required for any

other proceedings after filing of charge sheet, therefore in view of the aforesaid

facts and circumstances, bail has been granted in favour of respondent no.1 and

as such the bail has not been granted on account of parity.

8. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance

upon some of the verdicts of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench

3

Signed by: SUMATHI

Signing time: 20-12-

2023 17:28:01

Signature Not Verified

of this Court. He has relied upon the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P.

reported as (2022) 8 SCC 559 wherein it has been held that the issue of bail is

one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasur