Role Of Accused & Their Position In Relation To Incident & Victim Is Of Utmost Importance In Deciding Case Of "Parity": Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that in deciding the case of parity, the role attributed to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victim is of utmost importance.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta denied bail to one Sajid Khan accused in an FIR registered under sec. 392, 397, 411 and 34 of Indian Penal Code along with sec. 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

It was the case of the prosecution that in April last year, a PCR call was received regarding robbery at gunpoint. During investigation, the complainant informed that while he was present in the office at about 10 AM, 3 boys entered into the office and robbed an amount of Rs.9,98,170 from Mannapuram Finance Ltd. with the help of gun and knife and thereafter fled from the spot.

It was submitted by the prosecution that during the course of investigation, three accused were arrested with the help of CCTV footage including the petitioner. Furthermore, it was alleged that at the instance of the petitioner, amount of Rs.5 lakh was recovered along with a toy gun.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that co accused were granted bail by the Sessions Court and claimed bail on parity.

On the other hand, the prosecution vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that role of the petitioner was distinct from the other accused persons since he was the mastermind and had also refused to join the TIP proceedings.

"In deciding the case of parity, the role attributed to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victim is of utmost importance," the Court observed.

The Court was of the view that since a day-light robbery had been committed at Mannapuram Finance Ltd. and a substantial amount had been recovered at the instance of petitioner who was allegedly the "mastermind", it was not a fit case for grant of bail.

The plea was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: SAJID KHAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 579

Click Here To Read Order