The accused had sought bail, citing the time that they had already spent in custody and the delay within the completion of the trial.
The Excessive Courtroom, nevertheless, refused to intervene with the particular court docket’s determination to disclaim them bail.
It held that lengthy incarnation and delay alone couldn’t justify bail on this case, significantly as a result of seriousness of the offences alleged in opposition to the accused, which included homicide, and felony conspiracy below the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and offences below the Illegal Actions (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), referring to terrorist acts and conspiracy, a few of which carry a most punishment of demise or life imprisonment.
The accused had additionally argued that a few of their co-accused had already been granted bail, whereas in search of related aid.
The Courtroom rejected this argument, holding that bail granted to at least one accused can’t robotically be prolonged to a different merely as a result of they’re accused in the identical case.
It mentioned that the particular position of every accused within the alleged offence, their place in relation to the incident and the gravity of the fees in opposition to them need to be thought-about individually.
“Parity is just not the legislation. Whereas making use of that precept, the court docket is required to focus upon the position connected to the accused whose utility is into account,” the Courtroom mentioned.
Consequently, the Courtroom refused to grant bail to the three accused.
