Accused Not Entitled To Bail Merely Because Co-Accused Was Granted Bail; Individual Offences/Overt Acts Have To Be...
Accused Not Entitled to Bail Merely Because Co-Accused Was Granted Bail
Basic Principle
The grant of bail is a discretionary judicial act.
The decision depends on the facts and circumstances of each accused, their role in the offence, and the nature of the allegations.
Simply because one co-accused is granted bail does not automatically entitle other co-accused to bail.
Courts must consider the individual conduct, involvement, and overt acts of each accused separately.
Rationale Behind This Principle
Each accused may have played a different role in the crime—some may be major conspirators, others minor participants.
The severity of charges, likelihood of tampering with evidence, fleeing justice, or influencing witnesses varies from person to person.
Granting bail indiscriminately based on others’ bail would undermine judicial scrutiny and public interest.
The principle maintains balance between liberty and societal safety.
Role of Individual Offences and Overt Acts
Overt acts: The specific actions committed by the accused that demonstrate active participation in the offence or conspiracy.
Courts analyze the individual overt acts and evidence against the accused.
The gravity of the particular offence(s) committed by each accused influences bail decisions.
Even if co-accused involved in lesser or different offences are released, the accused who committed more serious overt acts or offences may be denied bail.
Relevant Case Laws
1. Ramesh vs State of T.N., (1998) 2 SCC 672
The Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail to one accused does not create a precedent or automatic right for co-accused.
Bail has to be considered on individual merits.
The court stressed that the role played by the accused and the nature of offence are critical in bail decisions.
2. State of Rajasthan vs Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447
Established that each accused must be considered separately for bail.
Even if a co-accused has been enlarged on bail, the court may refuse bail to others if the charges or facts differ materially.
3. Gurcharan Singh vs State of Haryana, (1980) 3 SCC 471
The Court reiterated that the conduct and involvement of each accused is crucial.
It is not the case that if one accused has been granted bail, others automatically get bail.
4. Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
While stressing the right to bail, the Court emphasized that each accused’s case has to be examined on its own facts, particularly the seriousness of charges and risk factors.
Practical Implications
Courts examine the charge sheet, FIR, evidence, and role of accused.
Bail is denied if accused is involved in serious overt acts, likely to interfere with investigation or intimidate witnesses.
The mere fact that some co-accused are released on bail cannot be a determinative factor.
Courts ensure fairness by treating accused individually but maintain public confidence in judicial process by careful scrutiny.
Summary
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Individual Merits | Bail depends on accused’s role, nature of offences, and facts. |
| Co-Accused Bail Not Binding | Bail granted to co-accused doesn’t guarantee bail to others. |
| Overt Acts Matter | Seriousness of overt acts influence bail decision. |
| Judicial Discretion | Bail is discretionary, balanced against liberty and public safety. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments