Role Attached To Accused Has To Be Considered While Deciding Bail Plea Citing Parity: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the role attached to the accused has to be considered while deciding the plea seeking bail on the ground of parity.

The seriousness and gravity of the crime alleged has to be considered while granting bail to the accused, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna reiterated while setting aside a bail grant to a murder accused.

The case relates to murder of a Senior Technical Officer with the Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi. On 14 February, 2018, he was found in an unconscious state near Railway Crossing Puliya and was declared brought dead at the hospital. Later on investigation, it was revealed that he was killed by administering Ketamine. A charge sheet was filed against Raveen Rathore (employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau), the wife of the deceased and some others. The co-accused Anita Meena was granted bail on 4 June 2019, after the High Court noted that she had a child of eleven months and due to her  incarceration, her child was also confined with her in the jail. Thereafter,  Rathore was also granted bail on the following grounds: (i) custody for a period of two and a half years; (ii) Out of seventy-six witnesses only twenty-five have been examined; (iii) There was a delay in lodging the FIR; (iv) While the initial FSL report did not contain any reference to the use of the Ketamine, it was after four months that police had developed a case that Ketamine was administered to the deceased; and (v) The co-accused had been enlarged on bail. 

In appeal filed by the father of the deceased, the Apex Court bench observed that the High Court ought to have had due regard to the seriousness and gravity of the crime. The material which has emerged during the course of investigation cannot simply be ignored or glossed over, the court said.

The bench referred to the following observations made in a recent judgment in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana LL 2021 SC 221: 

"26.…The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law,"

In this case, the court noted that the bail was granted to the co-accused primarily and substantially on the ground that she had a child of eleven months with her in jail. "This cannot be the basis to a claim of parity on the part of the first respondent. The first respondent cannot claim parity with the co-accused since the allegations in the FIR and the material that has emerged from the investigation indicate that a major role has been attributed to him in the murder of the deceased", the court said. 

While setting aside the bail order, the bench further observed: "The consideration that twenty-five witnesses out of seventy-six witnesses had been examined must equally be weighed with the seriousness of the crime, the role attributed to the first respondent and the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with if the first respondent were to remain on bail during the course of the trial. In this backdrop, it was wholly inappropriate for the High Court to proceed on the surmise that the police had "developed a case" that Ketamine was administered, after four months of the incident."

Click here to Read/Download Judgment