Pinnacle court says that reasons which weigh with the court in cancelling Bail to Co accused would also apply on other accused seeking bail

05-04-2022

The top court has noticed that the explanations which weigh with the Court in cancelling the bail granting to co accused would also apply just in case of bail preferred by another accused in relevancy the identical FIR and incident.

The two member bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant rendered this observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated November 9, 2021.

In the impugned judgement, the tribunal had allowed the applying preferred by first respondent seeking bail for the case registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian legal code.

The bench while adjudicating on the difficulty involved cited its judgement dated March 5, 2021 wherein the highest Court had considered the correctness of an order dated 23 November 2020 granting bail to the co-accused, Amardeep and Bhushan arising out of the identical FIR. In its judgement, the Top

By the judgment of this Court dated 5 March 2021, the order of the court granting bail was kept aside.

Referring to its judgement cancelling bail to co accused, the bench while setting aside the order granting bail, the bench said,

"We are unable to just accept the approach of the tribunal in granting bail to the primary respondent despite the judgment of this Court dated 5 March 2021 having been specifically drawn to its notice. The state supreme court has not held that the case of the primary respondent was distinguishable clear on facts for evaluating the case for the grant of bail. As a matter of fact, the explanations which have weighed with this Court in cancelling the bail which was granted to the co-accused would equally apply to the case of the primary respondent which also arises out of the identical first information report and incident."

The bench also directed the respondent to surrender no later than within per week from the date of this order. Liberty was also granted to the respondent to pursue remedies available in law just in case of trial not being concluded within an affordable period.

Advocate Anupam Dwivedi appeared for the appellant, Advocate Saurav Trivedi appeared for the primary respondent and Advocate Sarvesh Singh Baghel appeared on behalf of the State of province.