Supreme Court says state can't be permitted to apply separate yardsticks for different accused

New Delhi: The state government cannot be permitted to apply different yardsticks for different accused, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday while granting bail to a man in a criminal case lodged in West Bengal.

The apex court noted the state does not propose to challenge the order granting anticipatory bail to four other co-accused in the case, though the court had given suggestions in that regard.

"On the other hand, the state government is opposing the application for grant of bail of an accused, who has been incarcerated in jail for a period of about one year and two months," a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said.

"The state government cannot be permitted to apply different yardsticks for different accused," it said.

The top court was dealing with a plea filed by a man, who had challenged the Calcutta High Court's July this year order dismissing his application seeking regular bail in the case lodged in October 2023.

The bench noted that in its September 19 order passed in the matter, it had observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act was a very serious issue.

It said the court had, therefore, directed the state to consider as to whether it proposes to file an application for cancellation of bail granted to the other four co-accused.

During the hearing on Wednesday, the counsel appearing for West Bengal said the state does not propose to challenge the anticipatory bail granted to the four co-accused.

Opposing the petition, the state's counsel said the petitioner was involved in a serious offence concerning the NDPS Act.

"Things are clear," the bench orally observed, adding, "it is all in collusion".

"In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the application. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail, to the satisfaction of the trial court," the bench ordered and disposed of the plea.

It noted that the petitioner had prayed for regular bail on the ground that four other accused were already granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.