Parity necessary to maintain judicial discipline, co-accused for the same offense eligible for bail unless sufficient reasons for refusal are shown: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court clarified that if the bail application of an accused is granted, then the bail application of co-accused for the same offense cannot be rejected without giving sufficient reasons for the refusal.

The Court further clarified that where the bail application of one co-accused is refused, the application of another co-accused may be granted if the charges against the co-accused whose application is granted are less serious.

The petitioner is 8 years old^vol accused and charged with committing crimes punishable under Art. 126 section 2 (unlawful immobilization), Art. 115 section 2 (voluntarily causing harm), art. 118 section 1 (2) (voluntarily causing hurt or serious injury by using dangerous weapons or means), 324 par. 4 (mischief) in connection with § 3 section 5 (common intention) BNS.

It is reported that from 1 to 4 accused were released on bail, while 8 applications for bail were submitted.^vol the accused was released by the Chief Judge without giving any reason.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan ordered trial courts to maintain clarity while hearing bail applications to maintain judicial discipline.

“The rules of judicial discipline when issuing orders apply not only to constitutional courts, but also to common courts and municipal courts. If an application for bail from one of the accused is granted and if an application is submitted by a co-accused for the same offense, unless there are sufficient reasons for doing so, the application for release of the co-accused shall not be dismissed. Of course, if the charges against the defendant released on bail are less serious compared to those involving the other defendant, a distinction can be made. However, the competent court should justify the refusal to grant bail to a co-accused for the same offense if one of the accused is released on bail. The principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

According to the indictment files, 15 people with a common intention illegally immobilized two people, attacked them and they suffered serious injuries.

The prosecutor presented serious charges against 8^vol accused. However, it was also testified that compared to the charges against accused 1 to 3, the charges against 8^vol the accused were of a less serious nature.

The Court held that where a co-accused’s application for bail is refused, the bail application of another co-accused may only be granted if the charge against the co-accused whose bail application is refused is of a more serious nature. The court further added: “Similarly, if the bail application of an accused of an offense is granted and the application of another co-accused comes before the Session Court or the Magistrate Court and the court wishes to refuse the bail application, sufficient reason should be to show that the charge against a co-accused who is granted bail is lesser compared to the charge against a co-accused whose bail application is rejected.”

On the facts of the case, the Court observed that the bail applications filed by the 7th^vol and 8^vol accused were rejected without giving specific reasons when the main accused was granted bail. The court stated “This practice must be put to an end.”

Therefore, the Court allowed bail 8^vol accused.

Counsel for the petitioner: Attorneys MBShyni, Rajesh Kumar R, VRAnilkumar, Sarafudheen T., Eldhose Joy, Ajith PC, Vishnuja Biju