TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether parity by itself is a sufficient ground for grant of bail in a second or third bail application when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail. (ii) Whether an accused is required to disclose in his bail application that a co-accused's earlier bail application in the same case had been rejected.
Issue (i): Whether parity by itself is a sufficient ground for grant of bail in a second or third bail application when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail.
Analysis: The Court held that parity means equality of status or being on the same footing, but all accused do not necessarily stand on identical footing. Bail must still be assessed on individual facts with reference to the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, the likelihood of absconding, repeating the offence, tampering with witnesses, and other relevant considerations. Consistency is desirable, and where the applicant's case is truly identical to that of a bailed co-accused, parity may support release. But parity cannot be the sole or automatic ground for bail.
Conclusion: Parity alone is not sufficient to grant bail, though it may operate where the accused is shown to be on identical facts and circumstances with the released co-accused.
Issue (ii): Whether an accused is required to disclose in his bail application that a co-accused's earlier bail application in the same case had been rejected.
Analysis: The Court held that prior rejection of a co-accused's bail application does not bar consideration of another accused's bail application. Since the applicant may not have had an opportunity to be heard when the earlier application was decided, the earlier rejection cannot prejudice him. The obligation is to disclose facts relevant to his own case, not the history of another accused's failed bail plea.
Conclusion: It is not necessary for the accused to disclose that a co-accused's earlier bail application had been rejected.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that parity is a relevant but not exclusive consideration in bail, and that prior rejection of a co-accused's bail does not have to be disclosed; the matter was sent back for disposal of the bail application in light of these answers.
Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters, consistency may justify extension of bail only when the accused stands on identical facts with a released co-accused, but bail remains a matter of individualized judicial discretion based on the relevant circumstances of each accused.
TaxTMI 
