Bail on Parity Ignoring Different Role and Criminal Antecedents Must Be Set Aside: Supreme Court

The wife of the deceased challenged the Allahabad High Court's order of 22.09.2014 granting bail under Section 439 CrPC to the second respondent in a case including offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC (paras 2, 5). He sought bail on parity with a co-accused already on bail; the State opposed it citing his criminal antecedents and different role (para 3). The High Court granted bail on parity (para 4), though the Sessions Court had refused it (para 6). The prosecution alleged that armed men entered the complainant's house and fired, killing his brother (para 6). Before the Supreme Court the State supported the widow, calling him a history-sheeter (para 8), while he defended the parity order (para 9).

Bail is discretionary but cannot be granted arbitrarily; the court must weigh the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment, the evidence, the risk to witnesses and prima facie satisfaction (paras 10-11), and the High Court must exercise its discretion cautiously and strictly (para 12). Cancelling bail for misconduct or supervening circumstances is "in a different compartment altogether" from setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse grant, where the court examines the soundness of the order itself (para 13). The State's affidavit listed fifteen cases against the second respondent, most still pending, some under Section 302 IPC (para 14). He was alleged to have fired at the deceased, and the allegations against him and the co-accused were different (para 15). Liberty is precious, but "the liberty of an individual is not absolute" (para 16). Faced with the history-sheeter stand, the High Court had to scrutinise every aspect; it was not a case of parity, and the High Court ignored charge-sheets for other heinous offences (para 17).