Brief Facts
- The present bail cancellation application was filed by the State of Rajasthan seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused Indira Kumari vide order dated 07.03.2024 in connection with FIR No.234/2023 registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Kota City for offences under Sections 302 and 34 IPC relating to the murder of Ganesh Sharma @ Sunil.
- During investigation, statements of material witnesses Anil Sharma and Mohammad Kaif were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein all the accused persons, including Indira Kumari, were shown to be last seen together with the deceased. However, while seeking bail, the accused Indira Kumari suppressed the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and projected a case as if there was no evidence against her, on which basis bail was granted.
- Thereafter, co-accused Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj filed bail applications claiming parity with Indira Kumari. Upon noticing concealment and suppression of material evidence, this Court issued suo-motu notice for cancellation of bail granted to Indira Kumari and heard all connected matters together.
Issues
- Whether the bail granted to accused Indira Kumari was liable to be cancelled on the ground of suppression and concealment of material evidence?
- Whether the principle of parity can be invoked when bail granted to a co-accused itself was obtained by misrepresentation?
- Whether parity can be applied as a straight-jacket formula in serious offences like murder?
Held
- The Court held that the accused Indira Kumari deliberately concealed the statements of last-seen witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and obtained bail by misrepresentation, thereby polluting the stream of justice. The Court further held that parity is founded on positive equality and cannot be claimed on the basis of an illegal or tainted order. Consequently, the bail granted to Indira Kumari was cancelled and the bail applications of co-accused Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj, founded solely on parity, were rejected. The findings of the court are as under:
- 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. 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. 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.
Issue No. 1
- Having taken note of all these material available on the record and also the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, it discloses that the accused Indira Kumari has got the bail order dated 07.03.2024 from this Court by suppressing the material evidence i.e. the statements of the last seen witnesses – Anil Sharma and Mohammad Kaif recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Had the said material facts were brought to the notice of this Court, while exercising the discretion, then the result/order would have been otherwise. In the case of Moti Lal Songara (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that if any order is obtained by suppression of facts, then it is an obligation of the Court to set aside the said order. Such person cannot be allowed to take advantage of such order. It has also been held that the victim of the offence has as much as right to get justice as the accused.
Issue No. 2 and 3
- 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.
Relevant Para No.
- 12 to 15, 21 to 25, 29 and 30