Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Justice M Nagaprasanna has observed that the plea of parity raised by an accused in seeking bail is not binding on the court and individual offences and individual overt acts are to be assessed and not to simply follow orders of other accused who are enlarged on bail and on parity grant the same.

• The Karnataka High Court gave this judgment in the case of Almas Pasha and the State of Karnataka.

What is the Background of Almas Pasha and the State of Karnataka Case?

• The accused, in his second bail application, claimed that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the score of parity.
• Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench granting bail to accused no. 3, it was contended that another accused had been denied bail by the court which the said accused had called in question before the Apex Court.
• The Apex Court on the ground of parity granted him bail.
• The present accused too should be released on bail on sheer parity. Since the father of the petitioner is ailing and he has to be with his ailing father, therefore, he be granted bail.
• Opposing the bail plea, the counsel for the prosecution submitted that it was the petitioner who hit the first blow, chopped off the hand of the victim (Son-in-law) and the offence being so grave, he should not be enlarged on bail.
• But the accused have been released on bail in different circumstances and thus, the present accused can't be granted bail merely on the ground of parity.
• The bench went through the court orders passed in the case of another co-accused to note that accused no. 3, who was enlarged on bail, was granted relief on the ground that he required immediate surgery to the left knee and spine.
• The court noted that the another accused, who was enlarged on bail long before rejection of bail of the present petitioner by the HC.
• Therefore, the court added that it would not become a changed circumstance. It also noted that accused no. 5 was released on bail by the apex court.
• The court opined that enlargement of accused nos. 3 and 4 by the coordinate bench of the court and accused no. 5 was granted relief by the apex court and these factors would not form semblance of changed circumstances for entertainment of the petition of the present accused.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The findings in the charge sheet are that the petitioner was the first person to take out the chopper, cut the hands of the deceased, hit the deceased along with a stick and later cut the hands into pieces. Though the petitioner was not required for custodial interrogation, the findings are grave enough to anticipate any danger.
• Merely because other accused are enlarged on bail, the petitioner would not get a right to get himself enlarged on bail.
• The submission that the petitioner/accused no. 2 and accused no. 5 are similarly placed is unacceptable as individual overt act by the petitioner has a chilling effect on any petition considered for enlargement on bail.
• A persuasive parity would not mean that the petitioner would also be enlarged on bail. The medical condition of his father is projected as a ruse to get himself enlarged on bail, which ground is also unacceptable.

What is ‘Plea of Parity’?

• Meaning:
  • The parity principle means that a sentence should be ‘similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.’
  • Given the subjective nature of the sentencing process it is necessary that all sentences ‘must respect the parity principle’.
  • Offenders being sentenced to the same or similar offence should not have disparate sentences.
  • The sentences should be approximately the same, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors unique to the individual.
  • Parity does not mean uniformity and should not reduce the focus on the need for proportionality.
• Purpose of Parity:
  • The purpose of the parity principle is to ensure fairness ‘by avoiding disproportionate sentences among convicted persons where, essentially, the same facts and circumstances indicate equivalent or like sentences.
  • It does not, however, override the individualized approach to sentencing.
  • The purpose is not to match sentences perfectly, but rather should advance fairness.