Role Attached To Accused Should Be The Focus While Applying Principle Of Parity In Bail Applications: SC
The Supreme Court confirmed the grant of anticipatory bail to a mother who allegedly conspired with her son to blackmail a woman with obscene photographs.
The Court stated that the “grant of bail based on parity is not a claim of right,” and explained that to apply the principle of parity, a “Court is required to focus on the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.”
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “The present appellant has been charged under Section 120-B IPC and Section 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. It can be seen that the alleged act of the instant appellant is inextricably bound to the acts of the prime accused. It is alleged that he had secured pictures of the complainant, that were compromising in nature, which then the instant appellant used to extort and to blackmail the complainant.”
Sr. Advocate Bhaskar Dev Konwar represented the appellant, while Sr. Advocate S.Nagamuttu appeared for the respondents.
An FIR was lodged against the mother and her son for allegedly taking obscene photographs of the complainant without her knowledge, threatening to circulate them on social media, and trying to extort money from her.
Following this, the mother moved an application for anticipatory bail, which was initially rejected by the Sessions Court and then by the High Court. However, a subsequent application for anticipatory bail was granted by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The complainant filed an application under Section 439(2) of the CrPC to challenge the grant of anticipatory bail to the mother.
The son, who was the prime accused in the case, was charged under Section 376, 354, 389, 506, and 120-B IPC while the mother was charged under Section 120-B IPC and Section 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. The Court pointed out that the son had been granted anticipatory bail in the case.
The Court pointed out the the mother had not acted independently to aggravate the situation, but had played the role to further the acts of the son.
Based on the same, the Court set aside the order of cancellation of bail while confirming the order granting anticipatory bail to the mother.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sabita Paul v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 245)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Bhaskar Dev Konwar; AOR Charu Ambwani; Advocate Jyotimala Dev Konwar
Respondents: Sr. Advocate S.Nagamuttu; AOR Anwesha Saha and Astha Sharma; Advocates Arnab Sengupta, Rajesh Kr. Sharma, Deborshi Dhar, Janardan Periwal, Riju Dey, Salim Ansari, Srisatya Mohanty and Muskan Surana
