Awesome Argue by Young Lawyer, Heated Argument in Court, #MpHighCourt #SupremeCourt #LawChakra

Summary

The speaker argues against the rejection of a bail application, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. They refer to the doctrine of parity, highlighting that other co-accused in similar cases have been granted bail, including the main accused, Mustakim. The speaker stresses that personal liberty and the principle of bail being the default should guide the decision. They assert that the circumstances of this case are in line with those where bail was granted, and the applicant should be treated similarly to others in comparable situations.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker refrains from answering a question due to the sensitivity of the case and the potential implications of contempt notices.
• 😀 The speaker objects to the loss suffered in the case and dismisses the application with emphasis on malice content.
• 😀 The speaker stresses that bail is the rule and that jail is an exception, asserting a strong belief in personal liberty.
• 😀 The speaker references a Supreme Court decision where bail was granted to the main accused (Mustakim) after serving one year in custody.
• 😀 The principle of parity is highlighted, with the speaker noting that other co-accused individuals have been granted bail under similar conditions.
• 😀 The speaker argues that the applicant's case should be viewed in light of the Supreme Court's prior decision, which involved co-accused being granted bail on similar grounds.
• 😀 The applicant is argued to have been denied bail unfairly due to procedural issues and the failure to account for the parity of the case with other accused individuals.
• 😀 The speaker emphasizes that all other co-accused persons involved in connected offenses have been granted bail, thus securing personal liberty for those individuals.
• 😀 The speaker raises concerns about the legal implication of granting bail to the applicant only after other co-accused persons have already been released.
• 😀 The speaker rejects the idea that the doctrine of parity should be applied selectively, asserting that the general application of this legal doctrine should not be restricted or approached narrowly.

Q & A

What is the central argument being made in the transcript?

The central argument in the transcript is the application for bail, with a focus on the doctrine of parity. The applicant's legal counsel argues that the applicant should be granted bail, as other co-accused individuals in similar cases have already been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

What is the doctrine of parity and how is it applied in this case?

The doctrine of parity refers to the principle that co-accused individuals in similar cases should be treated equally. In this case, the applicant's counsel argues that since other co-accused persons in related offenses were granted bail, the applicant should also be granted bail on the same grounds.

How does the applicant's legal team view the Supreme Court's previous rulings?

The applicant’s legal team views the Supreme Court’s previous rulings positively, citing that the Court granted bail to other co-accused individuals based on the same legal reasoning. They argue that the applicant should not be treated differently given the similarity of the offenses.

What are the two key considerations mentioned by the Supreme Court in granting bail to other co-accused individuals?

The two key considerations mentioned by the Supreme Court were: (1) the custody period already served by the accused, and (2) the fact that all other co-accused individuals were granted bail in the related offenses.

What is the applicant’s stance regarding the denial of bail?

The applicant’s legal team strongly objects to the denial of bail, arguing that there are no substantial differences between the applicant’s case and those of the other co-accused, who have already been granted bail.

Why does the applicant argue that bail is the rule and jail is the exception?

The applicant argues that personal liberty is of utmost importance and that bail should be granted as a general principle, with jail being an exceptional measure only when justified by specific reasons.

What does the applicant’s counsel say about the legal implications of the doctrine of parity?

The applicant’s counsel asserts that the doctrine of parity has general applicability and should be enforced in a consistent manner, especially when the offenses involved are identical or very similar, as in this case.

What is the applicant’s objection to the current handling of their case?

The applicant objects to the handling of their case because they believe that the denial of bail in their case, despite the granting of bail to other co-accused individuals in similar offenses, creates an unjust disparity.

How does the applicant’s counsel view the potential for a dynamic approach to the doctrine of parity?

The applicant’s counsel argues that the doctrine of parity should not be applied with a 'dynamic' or flexible approach, as it is a general legal principle that should be applied uniformly and consistently.

What is the ultimate request of the applicant's legal team?

The ultimate request of the applicant's legal team is for the court to grant bail to the applicant, citing the principles of parity and personal liberty, as well as the fact that all other co-accused individuals in the connected offenses have been granted bail.