Plea Of Parity Not Binding On Court To Grant Bail To Accused, Individual Offences/ Overt Acts Are To Be Assessed: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that the plea of parity raised by an accused in seeking bail is not binding on the court and individual offences and individual overt acts are to be assessed and not to simply follow orders of other accused who are enlarged on bail and on parity grant the same.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while rejecting the second bail application filed by one Almas Pasha who is charged for offence murder (Section 302 IPC).

The accused, in his second bail application, claimed that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the score of parity. Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench granting bail to accused No.3, it was contended that another accused had been denied bail by this Court which the said accused had called in question before the Apex Court. The Apex Court on the ground of parity has granted him bail.

Thus it was contended that the present accused too should be released on bail on sheer parity. It was also argued that since the father of the petitioner is ailing and he has to be with his ailing father, therefore, he be granted bail.

Opposing the bail plea, the Counsel for the prosecution submitted that it was the petitioner who has hit the first blow, chopped off the hand of the victim (Son-in-law) and the offence being so grave, he should not be enlarged on bail.

It was also submitted that the other accused have been released on bail in different circumstances and thus, the present accused can't be granted bail merely on the ground of parity. 

The bench went through the court orders passed in the case of other co-accused to note that Accused No.3, who was enlarged on bail, was granted the relief on the ground that he required immediate surgery to the left knee and spine.

The Court further noted that the another accused, who was enlarged on bail long before rejection of bail of the present petitioner by the HC. Therefore, the Court added that it would not become a changed circumstance. It also noted that Accused No.5 was released on bail by the Apex Court.

In view of this, the Court opined that enlargement of accused Nos.3 and 4 by the coordinate Bench of the Court and accused No.5 was granted relief by the Apex Court and these factors would not form semblance of changed circumstances for entertainment of the petition of the present accused.

Further it said “The findings in the charge sheet are that the petitioner was the first person to take out the chopper, cut the hands of the deceased, hit the deceased along with a stick and later cut the hands into pieces. Though the petitioner was not required for custodial interrogation, the findings are grave enough to anticipate any danger.”

Dismissing the petition the court said “Merely because other accused are enlarged on bail, the petitioner would not get a right to get himself enlarged on bail. The submission that the petitioner/accused No.2 and accused No.5 are similarly placed is unacceptable as individual overt act by the petitioner has a chilling effect on any petition considered for enlargement on bail. A persuasive parity would not mean that the petitioner would also be enlarged on bail. The medical condition of his father is projected as a ruse to get himself enlarged on bail which ground is also unacceptable.”

Appearance: Advocate Lethif B for Petitioner

HCGP K.P.Yashodha for Respondent

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 501

Case Title: Almas Pasha AND The State Of Karnataka

Click Here To Read/Download Order