Specific weapon usage does not disentitle an accused to bail parity in group assault cases.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons

The court held

The court allowed the bail applications, holding that parity cannot be denied to the applicants simply because one of them used a danda in a general melee

It also directed

The court directed that both Akash and Ankit be released on bail, if not required in any other case, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly

01Facts

The petitioners sought regular bail in FIR No. 269/2022 (PS Hari Nagar) for offenses under Sections 302, 307, 323, 147, 148, 149, 506, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

p. 1

The prosecution case involves an incident inside a jail cell where a group of prisoners assaulted two other inmates with dandas (wooden sticks), fists, and kicks, leading to the death of one prisoner

p. 2

The event was captured on CCTV

p. 2

The petitioners sought bail on the ground of parity with two co-accused, Ashwani and Rahul, who were granted bail by coordinate benches

p. 2

The State opposed the applications, noting that Akash is involved in six cases and Ankit in four, and specifically distinguished Ankit’s role as he used a danda during the assault while those granted bail did not

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons

p. 2

ii.2. Whether the specific use of a danda by an accused in a "free for all" group assault justifies the denial of bail when co-accused using fists/kicks have been granted bail

p. 3

03Law Applied

The court applied the legal principles governing regular bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) in the context of Sections 302 (Murder) and 147-149 (Unlawful Assembly/Rioting) of the IPC

p. 1

Central to the reasoning was the "Doctrine of Parity," which mandates similar treatment for similarly situated accused persons in bail matters.

p. 3

The court also considered the evidentiary weight of CCTV footage and the impact of prosecution witnesses turning hostile during trial

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34 Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 302 Section 307 Section 323 Section 506

04Reasoning

Upon viewing the CCTV footage, the court observed that the incident appeared to be a "free for all" assault by numerous inmates rather than a "concerted attack"

p. 3

The court reasoned that in such a chaotic group fight, the specific mode of assault—whether by danda, fists, or kicks—cannot be used as a strict criterion to distinguish roles for the purpose of bail

p. 3

The court further noted a significant lapse in the investigation, as the Investigating Officer admitted to not investigating how dandas were smuggled into the jail cell

p. 3

Additionally, the court took note of the fact that three prosecution witnesses had already turned hostile during the trial, weakening the prosecution's immediate case against the petitioners

p. 3

05Holding

The court allowed the bail applications, holding that parity cannot be denied to the applicants simply because one of them used a danda in a general melee

p. 3

pp. 3-4

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly

p. 4

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF