SC decides in favour of parity of treatment, grants bail to a man whose co-accused was earlier granted bail by it

A Bench allowed the bail application of Suraj Vijay Agarwal who has spent three years in custody following his arrest in 2020 in the murder of Rahul Shetty at Lonavala in Pune

Published - August 27, 2023 01:27 am IST - NEW DELHI

File.

File. | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

The Supreme Court chose to lean in favour of personal liberty and the right to be treated equally by the law in order to grant bail to a man accused in the murder of a Shiv Sena leader in Maharashtra three years ago.

A Bench headed by Justice BR Gavai allowed the bail application of Suraj Vijay Agarwal, represented by advocates Sana Raees Khan and Sriram Parakkat, who has spent three years in custody following his arrest in 2020 in the murder of Rahul Shetty at Lonavala in Pune.

Ms. Khan said her client was arrested based on a “vague allegation of political rivalry” with the killed man. He has continued to languish behind bars without bail despite the fact that the chargesheet was filed in January 2021, two years ago. Charges were yet to be framed in the case. Over 40 prosecution witnesses remain to testify. The trial has not commenced. She asked whether Agarwal should suffer incarceration as an undertrial indefinitely.

Ms. Khan and Mr. Parakkat said the top court had in May granted Agarwal’s co-accused, Kadar Nazir Inamdar, bail in May. Inamdar too had spent nearly three years in jail without trial. Another accused had been released in 2021.

The top court highlighted that the law should be administered by courts with a sense of parity. The court indicated that if an accused has been allowed bail, there was no reason why his co-accused facing the same charges should be denied his liberty.

“Taking into consideration the fact that this Court has already granted bail to the other co-accused (Inamdar), we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner (Agarwal). The petitioner is directed to be released on bail,” the Supreme Court ordered.

The Bench however imposed the condition that Agarwal should not enter the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadgaon, Maval, during the pendency of the trial, unless he was required to attend court.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.