If role of two accused are different, claim of parity can be rejected and bail can be denied [Read the Order]

Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail on parity when it found that role of two accused are different and trial court awarded different sentences to them considering their role.

A bench of Justice Bakhru has passed the order in the case titled as MR. DILDAR ALI vs STATE THROUGH GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI on 27.09.2019.

The appellant has filed the present application seeking suspension of sentence awarded to him. The petitioner states that the co-accused (Ajay Sharma) has already been released on bail by an order dated 19.06.2019 passed in Crl. M. Bail No. 1083/2019 in Crl. A. No. 736/2019 and on the principle of parity, the petitioner ought to be released on bail as well.

High Court however observed as under:

"This Court is unable to accept that the petitioner can be treated at parity with the co-accused.

First of all, the co-accused was sentenced to serve a sentence for a period of three years and six months while the appellant herein has been sentenced to serve a rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.

In the case of the co-accused, the iron rod which he is alleged to have used in hitting the victim, was not recovered. In the present case, the fawada which was found to have been used by the appellant has been recovered.

The allegation against the co-accused was that he had hit the victim on his legs, while in case of the appellant it was found that he had struck a blow on the head of the victim".

Then the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagan @ Jagan Nath v. State of Haryana: (2004) 13 SCC 507 in support of his contention, that even if the co-accused has played a different role, the accused ought to be enlarged on bail.

High Court however distinguished the said decision by observing as "In that case, the co-accused who was alleged to have inflicted a stab injury by a knife was released on bail. The appellant therein had used a brick and therefore, the Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have suspended the sentence of the appellant as well. Ex facie, the use of a knife as weapon would be more pernicious than the use of a brick. In the present case, the area of the body on which the blow had been inflicted is material. The Trial court has also awarded different sentences keeping in view of the role of the accuse persons".

The the High Court observed and held "The appellant has served a period of less than five months of the sentence awarded to him. In the given facts, this Court is not inclined to accept the present application. The application is dismissed".

Read the Order here:

Picture Source :