Principles of Judicial Discipline Bind Lower Courts; Co-Accused's Bail Plea Cannot Be Rejected Without Valid Reasons: Kerala High Court

Post By 24law
January 25, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Kerala High Court has emphasized that principles of judicial discipline extend to all courts, including Sessions and Magistrate courts, and must be adhered to when deciding bail applications. The court ruled that the bail plea of a co-accused in the same crime cannot be rejected without sufficient justification, particularly when other accused have already been granted bail.

Case Background

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the order while allowing a bail application filed by Manikandan N.P., the 8th accused in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioner was implicated in a case involving alleged assault, grievous injury, and property damage. As per the prosecution, on October 18, 2024, a group of around 15 individuals allegedly attacked the informant and his relative, causing injuries and vandalizing their vehicle. The petitioner contended that other accused persons, including the 1st to 3rd and the 7th accused, had already been granted bail. However, his bail plea was rejected by the Principal Sessions Judge without sufficient reasoning.

Key Observations by the Court

Judicial Discipline in Bail Decisions: Justice Kunhikrishnan highlighted the necessity for lower courts to uphold judicial discipline while deciding bail applications. He remarked, “If a bail application of one of the accused is allowed, and if any bail application is filed by the co-accused in the same crime, unless there are sufficient reasons, the bail application of the co-accused shall not be dismissed.”

Principle of Parity: The court emphasized on the importance of the principle of parity, rooted in Article 14 of the Constitution, ensuring equality before the law. It stated that unless there is a distinction in the allegations or overt acts, courts must treat co-accused similarly.

Requirement of Reasoned Orders: The High Court observed that the rejection of bail without adequate reasoning undermines judicial discipline. It criticized the Sessions Court for dismissing the petitioner’s bail plea without addressing the parity principle or the less serious nature of allegations against him compared to other accused who had already been granted bail.

Right to Bail as a Rule: Reiterating the jurisprudence on bail, the court observed, “Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” It referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), which affirms that the denial of bail must be justified by compelling reasons.

Court’s Findings

The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner were less serious compared to those against other accused who had already been granted bail. It criticized the lower court for failing to provide sufficient reasoning for denying bail to the petitioner, especially when similar relief had been granted to the other accused in the same case. Furthermore, the court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Principal Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, to ensure adherence to judicial principles in future decisions.

Bail Conditions

Granting bail, the High Court imposed the following conditions on the petitioner:

Execution of a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties.
Mandatory cooperation with the investigation and appearance before the investigating officer when required.
Prohibition from leaving the country or engaging in similar offenses during the bail period.