Parity Necessary To Maintain Judicial Discipline, Co-Accused In Same Crime Entitled To Bail Unless Sufficient Reasons Given For Denial: Kerala HC

The petitioner is 8^th accused and is accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 118(1) (2) (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 324(4) (mischief) read with Section 3(5) (common intention) of the BNS.

It is stated that accused 1 to 4 were released on bail, but the bail application of 8^th accused was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge without any reason.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan ordered that Trial Courts must exercise clarity while considering bail applications for maintaining judicial discipline.

“Principles of Judicial Discipline while passing orders applies not only to Constitutional Courts, but to the Sessions courts and Magistrate courts also. If a bail application of one of the accused is allowed and if any bail application is filed by the co-accused in the same crime, unless there are sufficient reasons, the bail application of the co-accused shall not be dismissed. Of course, if the allegation against the accused released on bail is less serious compared to the involvement of the other accused, a distinction can be made. But, the Court concerned should give reason while rejecting bail of the co-accused in the same crime, if one of the accused is released on bail. The principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

As per the prosecution case, 15 persons with common intention wrongfully restrained two persons, assaulted them and they sustained grievous injuries.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are serious allegations against the 8^th accused. But, it was also submitted that compared to allegations against the accused 1 to 3, the allegations against the 8^th accused were less serious in nature.

The Court stated that if the bail application of a co- accused is rejected, then bail application of another co-accused can be allowed only if the allegation against that co-accused whose bail application is rejected is more serious in nature. Court further added, “Similarly, if a bail application of an accused in a crime is allowed and the bail application of another co-accused comes up for consideration before the Sessions Court or the Magistrate Court and if the court wants to reject the bail application, sufficient reason should be mentioned to the effect that the allegation against the co- accused whose bail is granted, is less, compared to the allegation against the co-accused, whose bail application is going to be rejected.”

In the facts of the case, the Court noted that bail applications of the 7^th and 8^th accused were rejected without giving specific reasons when bail was granted to the main accused. Court said, “ This practice is to be stopped.”

As such, the Court allowed bail application of the 8^th accused.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates M.B.Shyni, Rajesh Kumar R, V.R.Anilkumar, Sarafudheen T., Eldhose Joy, Ajith P.C., Vishnuja Biju

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Noushad K A

Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 11269 OF 2024

Case Title: Manikandan N P v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 48

Click here to Read/Download Order