Parity and absence of prior approval under TADA can support bail for co-accused, with merits left for trial.

Parity among similarly placed co-accused can justify bail where the record does not distinguish one labourer from others already released and there is no material at the bail stage to show knowledge of the container contents; the question of actual knowledge was left for trial. The absence of prior approval under Section 20A(1) of TADA before registration of the FIR was also treated as a factor favouring bail, because prior approval was regarded as a pre-condition for recording the case. Bail was granted to the appellants, with conditions to be fixed by the trial court, and the merits of the prosecution were left open for trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail could be granted to a co-accused labourer on parity with other similarly placed labourers who had already been released; (ii) Whether the absence of prior approval under Section 20A(1) of TADA before registration of the FIR justified grant of bail to the principal appellant.

Issue (i): Whether bail could be granted to a co-accused labourer on parity with other similarly placed labourers who had already been released.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed that the appellant was one among several labourers said to have shifted containers from one vehicle to another. The other labourers had already been granted bail on the footing that they had no knowledge of the contents of the containers and were merely acting on instructions. No material was available, at the bail stage, to distinguish the appellant from those released on parity or to establish that he had knowledge of the contents of the boxes. The question of actual knowledge was left to the trial.

Conclusion: Bail was granted in favour of the appellant on parity.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of prior approval under Section 20A(1) of TADA before registration of the FIR justified grant of bail to the principal appellant.

Analysis: The record showed that the FIR had been lodged before the statutory approval was granted. Since prior approval under Section 20A(1) was treated as a pre-condition for recording the FIR, the Court held that this circumstance weighed in favour of bail at the present stage. The effect of the defect on the merits of the prosecution was left open for trial, but for bail purposes the absence of prior approval was treated as a decisive factor.

Conclusion: Bail was granted in favour of the principal appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the appellants were ordered to be released on bail, with conditions to be fixed by the trial court, while leaving all merits open for decision in the pending trials.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters under TADA, parity with similarly placed co-accused and the absence of the statutory prior approval required for registration of the case can justify release on bail, while leaving the merits of the prosecution to be decided at trial.

---