LI Network
Published on: December 25, 2023 at 21:44 IST
In a recent pronouncement, the Karnataka High Court has underscored that the plea of parity raised by an accused seeking bail is not obligatory for the Court.
The Court asserted that it is crucial to assess individual offences and overt acts rather than merely following the orders of other accused who have been granted bail on the grounds of parity.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over a single-judge bench, made this observation while rejecting the second bail application submitted by Almas Pasha, who is facing charges related to murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
Pasha, in his bail plea, contended that he should be granted bail based on parity with another accused who had been released by the court.
The petitioner relied on a judgment by a coordinate bench that granted bail to the third accused, citing that the Supreme Court had granted bail to a different accused on similar grounds.
The prosecution countered the plea, highlighting the severity of the offence committed by the petitioner, who allegedly inflicted the first blow and severed the hand of the victim. The prosecution argued against bail, emphasizing the gravity of the crime.
The court examined the orders related to other co-accused and noted that the relief granted to Accused No.3 was based on the urgent need for surgery, while Accused No.5 was released by the Supreme Court. The court concluded that these circumstances did not constitute a changed scenario for the present accused.
In its ruling, the Court stated, “Merely because other accused are enlarged on bail, the petitioner would not get a right to get himself enlarged on bail.” The Court rejected the plea, deeming the medical condition of the petitioner’s father as an unacceptable pretext for seeking bail.