Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in MPSC Scam Case on Parity with Co-Accused. Personal Secretary to Minister Entitled to Bail as Co-Accused with Similar Role Already Released by Supreme Court and High Court.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 66
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Avinash Tukaram Sanas, was accused No.7 in the MPSC Scam case, holding the post of a Class I Officer and Personal Secretary to a Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. He filed an application for bail before the Special Judge, which was rejected. He then filed Criminal Application No.3108 of 2003 in the Bombay High Court, which was also rejected. Subsequently, he applied again before the Special Judge on the ground of parity, relying on the orders of the Supreme Court granting bail to co-accused P.D. Wani and this Court granting bail to co-accused Sanjay Gangadhar Patil. The Special Judge rejected this application without considering the parity issue, merely noting that earlier bail applications had been rejected. The applicant then filed Criminal Application No.5691 of 2004 in the High Court, which was disposed of on 18th January 2005 with a direction to the Special Judge to consider the parity issue afresh. The Special Judge again rejected the application, leading to the present application. The High Court, after hearing submissions, found that the role attributed to the applicant was similar to that of the co-accused who had been granted bail. The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity and directed his release on bail on such terms and conditions as the Special Judge may impose.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Bail - Parity - Co-accused - MPSC Scam - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Applicant, a Class I officer and Personal Secretary to a Minister, sought bail on parity with co-accused P.D. Wani and Sanjay Gangadhar Patil who were granted bail by the Supreme Court and this Court respectively - The Special Judge rejected the application without considering the parity issue, merely because earlier bail applications were rejected - Held that the applicant is entitled to bail on parity as the role attributed to him is similar to that of the co-accused who have been released (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the applicant, accused No.7 in the MPSC Scam case, is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who have been granted bail by the Supreme Court and this Court.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Application allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Special Judge may impose.

Law Points

  • Bail
  • Parity
  • Co-accused
  • MPSC Scam
  • Prevention of Corruption Act
  • 1988
  • Section 167(2) CrPC
  • Default Bail
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 116

Criminal Application No.2534 of 2005

2005-06-30

Abhay S. Oka, J.

Shri M.S. Mohite with Shri Sameer Vaidya i/by Shri Naveen Chomal for the Applicant, Shri A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the Respondent

Avinash Tukaram Sanas

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail application

Remedy Sought

Bail on the ground of parity with co-accused

Filing Reason

Rejection of bail application by Special Judge without considering parity

Previous Decisions

Earlier bail applications rejected by Special Judge and High Court; High Court directed reconsideration of parity issue; Special Judge again rejected without considering parity

Issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on parity with co-accused who have been granted bail

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant argued that co-accused P.D. Wani and Sanjay Gangadhar Patil have been granted bail by the Supreme Court and this Court respectively, and the applicant's role is similar. Respondent opposed bail, but the court found no distinguishing features.

Ratio Decidendi

An accused is entitled to bail on the ground of parity when co-accused with similar role have been granted bail, and the Special Judge must consider the parity issue on merits rather than rejecting the application merely because earlier bail applications were rejected.

Judgment Excerpts

This Court observed that the question whether the Applicant was entitled to parity was not considered by the learned Special Judge. The Applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

Procedural History

Applicant filed bail application before Special Judge which was rejected. Then filed Criminal Application No.3108 of 2003 in High Court which was rejected. Subsequently applied again before Special Judge on parity ground which was rejected. Filed Criminal Application No.5691 of 2004 in High Court which was disposed of on 18th January 2005 directing Special Judge to consider parity afresh. Special Judge again rejected. Present application filed.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 167(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in MPSC Scam Case on Parity with Co-Accused. Personal Secretary to Minister Entitled to Bail as Co-Accused with Similar Role Already Released by Supreme Court and High Court.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Partition Suit for Clubbing Properties in Different Jurisdictions. Section 17 CPC Does Not Permit a Single Suit for Separate Immovable Properties Situated in Different States.