Equality cannot be the sole basis for granting bail to an accused in a criminal case: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that equity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted to an accused in criminal cases, despite courts following the ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ principle in granting relief.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh, which rejected the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to an accused in a murder case merely because the co-accused had been granted bail, said the relief of bail cannot be granted without due regard to the circumstances involved in the alleged crime for which the accused person has been arrested.

“Bail has often been said to be the rule and jail the exception. This cannot be stressed enough. Also, it does not mean that the relief of bail is to be granted without due regard to the circumstances attending the alleged offense for which the accused person has been arrested.

Read also, FIR against Rameshwaram cafe owners, representatives for selling harmful food

“In this regard, it is to be noted that a court has to consider multiple aspects while granting bail. The judgments delivered by this court are too numerous to enumerate, the relevant considerations to be taken into account have been outlined,” the apex court said in its November 28 judgment.

The bench said that the High Court failed to consider all relevant factors in granting bail to the accused. It said that it appears that the court has mistakenly granted bail on the sole basis of parity, which it has misconstrued as a device of direct application, as parity focuses on the role played by the accused and not on the sole common factor of the same offense between the accused persons.

The bench said that equality is not the only ground on which bail can be granted and this is the correct position in law.

“The word ‘equality’ has been defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as ‘equality, especially equality of pay or post.’ While weighing an application on parity, it is the ‘status’ that is decisive. Mere involvement in the same offense does not satisfy the requirement of ‘position’. Status means the position of the person whose application is being considered, his position in the offence, i.e., his role, etc.,” the top court said.

This emphasized that different roles may be played by whether any part of the larger group intends to intimidate; inciting violence; Someone who throws a hand at the other party, someone who is provoked by words said by the other person, someone who brandishes a weapon or swings a knife.

It said that these people would be equated with those who have committed similar acts, not with someone who was part of a group and intimidated others by the sheer size of the gathering, with another who attempted to cut off an opponent’s limbs with a weapon.

The top court passed the order in a case of murder that resulted from a verbal clash between villagers in a village in Uttar Pradesh, where an instigator was granted bail and other co-accused were granted bail on parity grounds.