Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court

"Principle of parity, which is a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence, requires that similarly situated accused persons be treated alike." Jharkhand High Court has held that the continuation of criminal proceedings against a co-accused would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India when the main accused, facing the same set of allegations, has already been discharged.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Shankar, in a judgment dated July 03, 2026, observed that where the accusation is joint and the case against the petitioner is qualitatively weaker than that of the discharged main accused, putting the petitioner on trial would result in a travesty of justice.

The case originated from a complaint by a Labour Enforcement Officer alleging that the then Labour Superintendent, Gumla, demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000 for releasing her Travelling Allowance bills. During a trap conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), a sum of Rs. 3,000 was recovered from the petitioner, who was working as a daily wage driver in the said office. The petitioner’s application for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC was rejected by the Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi, prompting this criminal revision.

The primary question before the Court was whether the petitioner, a daily wage driver from whom the bribe amount was recovered, could be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act after the main accused—the officer who allegedly made the demand—had already been discharged by a co-ordinate bench. The Court also examined the applicability of the principle of parity in the context of joint accusations where the foundational facts regarding demand and acceptance were found missing against the principal offender.

Court Emphasizes Principle Of Parity In Criminal Jurisprudence

The Court noted that the main accused, Ranjeet Kumar (the then Labour Superintendent), had already been discharged by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in May 2023. The Court observed that the principle of parity is a fundamental tenet of criminal law that ensures equal treatment for similarly situated individuals. It held that when two individuals are charged within the same administrative chain of events and the more prominently placed accused is cleared, the subordinate cannot be singled out for trial.

Evidence Against Petitioner Qualitatively Weaker Than Discharged Main Accused

The bench highlighted that the only allegation against the petitioner was the recovery of the bribe amount. There was no specific allegation of a demand for illegal gratification made by the petitioner himself. The Court reasoned that since the main accused, who was the alleged solicitor of the bribe, was already discharged, any attempt to distinguish the petitioner’s case would be futile.

"The nature of accusation against all the accused persons including the appellant was joint accusation. There was no reason for the High Court to single out the appellant from the other co-accused persons particularly when he had claimed parity."

Lack Of Foundational Facts Prevents Presumption Under Section 20 PC Act

Referring to the earlier discharge order of the main accused, the Court reiterated that unless there is material to make out a prima facie case of demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be drawn. The Court found that the petitioner, a daily wage driver, had no knowledge that the amount recovered was illegal gratification intended for a public duty, further weakening the prosecution's stance.

Trial Against Subordinate Accused Deemed Arbitrary Under Article 14

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Susanta Kumar Dalei @ Susanta Kuamr Dalai Vs. State of Orissa (Vigilance) (2026), noting that a comparative examination of roles showed no distinguishable basis for differential treatment. The bench observed that continuing proceedings against the petitioner alone would be arbitrary and violative of the right to equality.

"When the allegations and evidence against the appellant were not even qualitatively stronger than those against the discharged co-accused, the continuation of proceedings against the appellant alone would be arbitrary."

State Fails To Show Any Challenge To Discharge Of Main Accused

The Court pointed out that despite being given time to obtain instructions, the State had not brought on record any evidence that the discharge order of the main accused had been challenged before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the findings regarding the lack of a prima facie case in the primary transaction stood unchallenged, benefiting the petitioner.

The High Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by putting the petitioner to trial when the primary offender had been discharged on the same facts. The Court allowed the criminal revision, quashed the order of the Special Judge, ACB, and discharged the petitioner from the case.

Date of Decision: July 03, 2026