The court reaffirmed the principle that where a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail, the remaining accused is also entitled to bail, subject to the satisfaction of the court. This decision upholds established precedent and serves as a binding authority for subordinate courts, especially in cases involving analogous factual circumstances under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | BA2/261/2025 of GARV MEHRA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010158602025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Uttarakhand |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC and Arms Act, Bail Jurisprudence) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the grant of bail to a co-accused with a similar role warrants bail to another accused in the same case. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail, the applicant should also be considered for bail, unless there are distinguishing circumstances. The State admitted the parity of role, and no differential factor was shown. Judicial discretion in bail matters should be exercised consistently to avoid discrimination. On facts, the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The applicant was in judicial custody in relation to offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 34 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Counsel argued, and the State admitted, that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (in similar factual scenarios) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that an accused with a role similar to a co-accused already on bail is entitled to parity in bail consideration, unless specific distinguishing factors exist.
- State’s admission of similarity in role is a strong basis for bail.
- Lawyers should closely compare the roles of co-accused when seeking bail for parity.
- Subordinate courts are bound to follow this principle in analogous cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The applicant sought bail on the basis that a co-accused, having a similar role in the alleged offences, had already been granted bail.
- The State counsel admitted that the co-accused’s role was similar to that of the applicant.
- The court considered the principle of parity in bail matters and determined that, in the absence of distinguishing circumstances between the applicant and the co-accused, bail should be granted to maintain consistency and prevent discrimination.
- The application was thus allowed, subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The applicant’s role was similar to that of a co-accused who had already been granted bail.
Respondent/State
- Admitted that the co-accused had a similar role and had been granted bail.
Factual Background
The applicant was in judicial custody for offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, based on FIR No. 83 of 2024 at Police Station I.T.I, Udham Singh Nagar. The plea for bail was grounded in the argument that a co-accused, assigned a similar role in the incident, had already been granted bail — a fact not disputed by the State.
Statutory Analysis
- The court dealt with offences under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 34 (common intention) of the IPC, and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
- The order proceeds on the established principle of parity in bail under criminal jurisprudence, applied here in the context of these provisions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing jurisprudence regarding parity in granting bail where co-accused with similar roles are concerned.