Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals against a common order of the Allahabad High Court dated 08.02.2023, which granted bail to three accused—Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, and Rishi Kumar—convicted for life imprisonment under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murders of Rajvir and Pawan Kumar. The appellant, Jadunath Singh, the complainant, challenged the bail order, arguing that the accused were dangerous criminals, particularly as Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar had subsequently murdered a police constable, Ajay Kumar, while in custody during the trial, and had absconded. The High Court had granted bail primarily on the grounds of the accused having been incarcerated for over ten years and parity with two co-accused (Pramod Kashyap and Adesh Kumar) who had been granted bail. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court was not informed of the subsequent murder of the police constable by Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, which was a relevant fact. The Court held that the parity argument was distinguishable because the co-accused who received bail were not involved in the police constable's murder. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against Arvind Kumar (who was not charge-sheeted in the police constable's murder) and allowed the appeals against Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, setting aside their bail and directing them to surrender within two weeks.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Cancellation of Bail - Subsequent Criminal Conduct - The High Court granted bail to three accused convicted for life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC, primarily on grounds of period of incarceration and parity with co-accused who had been granted bail. However, two of the accused (Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar) were also involved in the murder of a police constable during the trial and had absconded. The Supreme Court held that such subsequent conduct disentitles them to bail, and the parity with co-accused (Pramod Kashyap and Adesh Kumar) was distinguishable as they were not involved in the police constable's murder. The bail of Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar was cancelled, while the bail of Arvind Kumar (not involved in the subsequent murder) was upheld. (Paras 10-14) B) Criminal Law - Bail - Parity - Distinguishable Facts - The principle of parity in bail matters requires that co-accused be similarly situated. Where one accused has a significantly different criminal record or subsequent conduct, parity does not apply. The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Arvind Kumar (who was not charge-sheeted in the police constable's murder) from Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar (who were). (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's grant of bail to accused convicted for life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC was justified, especially in light of subsequent criminal conduct involving murder of a police constable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against Arvind Kumar, upholding his bail. It allowed the appeals against Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, setting aside their bail and directing them to surrender within two weeks.
Law Points
- Bail cancellation
- parity principle
- subsequent criminal conduct
- relevant facts suppression
- life imprisonment
- Section 302/149 IPC
