Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 29, 209 and 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Judgement By: Supreme Court of India

Judge/Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Facts

The appellant-complainant supplied foodgrains to the accused but did not receive the full payment. Respondent No.1 operated under multiple aliases with forged Aadhaar and PAN cards. He absconded for over 20 months and was arrested only after a reward was announced. The High Court granted him bail on grounds of parity with co-accused.

Key Legal Provisions

Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, and Sections 29, 209 and 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Issues raised

Whether bail granted on parity grounds was justified without considering criminal antecedents?

Arguments of the case

The Appellant argued that Respondent No.1 is a habitual offender with multiple FIRs, used fake identities, and absconded previously after securing bail while the Respondent argued that he was entitled to parity as co-accused were granted bail. 

Judgement

The Supreme Court set aside the bail order, holding that the High Court failed to consider respondent’s criminal antecedents, multiple aliases, history of absconding, and habitual offending. Parity cannot be extended blindly without examining individual circumstances. 

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.