Aminuddin vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Background
The appellant's son, Danish, was attacked in broad daylight by seven persons with knives and sharp weapons and died of eight ante-mortem injuries. The father (appellant) had lodged the FIR. One of the accused (respondent No. 2) surrendered later and, after his own bail applications were rejected, was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court solely on the ground of "parity", because certain co-accused (Fahim and others) had already been granted bail by coordinate benches of the same High Court. The father challenged this bail order, pointing out that the Supreme Court had already disapproved the bail granted to co-accused Fahim in an earlier order dated 15.03.2021.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that since the High Court's grant of bail to respondent No. 2 rested entirely on parity with co-accused Fahim, and that very order granting Fahim bail had already been set aside by the Supreme Court for ignoring relevant considerations (relying merely on the general mandate of Article 21 without reasons), the foundation for the present bail order collapsed as well. The Court reiterated that reasoned bail orders are essential to open justice, and that in a case of gruesome daylight murder with eight grievous injuries, custody duration and absence of criminal antecedents alone did not justify bail. The impugned bail order was set aside, and respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender forthwith, though the Court left it open for him to apply afresh for bail at an appropriate later stage, clarifying it had not commented on the merits of the case.
Lesson Learnt
Bail granted purely on "parity" with a co-accused cannot survive once the co-accused's own bail order is itself overturned. Courts must independently examine the facts and reasons for bail in each accused's case rather than mechanically following another bench's earlier (and later disapproved) order.