Simply Parity Can’t Be Sole Criteria For Grant Of Bail If Co-Accused Has Been Granted Bail Based On Incorrect Facts & Evidence: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court held that simply parity cannot be the sole criteria for grant of bail if the co-accused has been granted bail on the basis of incorrect facts and evidence.
The Jaipur Bench held thus in a batch of bail applications preferred by the accused persons against the State.
A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “Simply parity cannot be the sole criteria for grant of bail, if after scrutiny and examination of the record, the facts comes on the record that correct facts and evidence were not brought into the notice of the Court when indulgence of bail is granted to the co-accused. Hence the principle of parity as universal application or a straight jacket formula cannot be applied.”
The Bench said that the law of parity would be applied in granting bail to an accused, where the co-accused has been granted bail on similar set of circumstances.
Advocate Samarth Sharma represented the accused/petitioners while Public Prosecutor Imran Khan represented the State/respondent.
In this case, an FIR was registered against four accused persons for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with the allegation that they were culprits of causing murder. One of the accused was granted bail by the High Court and based on such order, the co-accused were seeking the same bail order only on the basis of parity that evidence against all the four accused was same, hence, the indulgence of bail be granted to them also.
The following issues arose before the High Court for consideration –
• Whether any party to the litigation, approaching the Court, with unclean hands by suppressing and concealing material facts is entitled for any relief or not?
• Whether the principles of parity in seeking bail can be applied as a straight jacket formula for granting bail under such circumstances?
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case remarked, “A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. … The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court’s atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court’s environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.”
The Court noted that the principle of parity is based on positive equality and if any illegality has been committed by any individual or any wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, the other person cannot claim the same parity as a matter of right and cannot ask the court to pass the same order by repeating or multiplying the same illegality or for passing a similar wrong order.
“A principle, axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. … Law of parity is a desirable rule and is applicable where the case of the accused is identical with the co-accused, who has been granted bail”, it said.
The Court further observed that simply because the co-accused has been granted bail is in itself not a criteria for granting bail if the court comes to the conclusions that the co-accused has been granted bail without consideration of the evidence available against him on the record.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the bail applications of the accused.
Cause Title- Anuj Pokharna @ Mikki Jain v. State of Rajasthan
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Samarth Sharma, Om Prakash Pareek, and Pankaj Gupta.
Respondents: PP Imran Khan