Allahabad High Court
Ratnesh Rai @ Chandan Rai vs State Of U.P. on 6 July, 2018
Bench: Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9020 of 2018
Applicant :- Ratnesh Rai @ Chandan Rai
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Kuldeep Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuwar Ritesh Kumar
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuwar Ritesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
This is a second bail prayer on behalf of the accused-applicant in case crime no.1002 of 2016 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 336, 307, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)V & 3(1)Gha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bhanwarkol, District Ghazipur. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.5.2017.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the bail of the two co-accused namely Ratnesh [email protected] Chandan Rai and Rabinesh Kumar [email protected] Rai, who have assigned the specific role of assaulting the deceased, has been rajected while the two other co-accused namely Ram Bahadur Rai and Suresh Rai, who have not assaulted the deceased, have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.5.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11718 of 2017. It is further contended that the other co-accused Dharmendra Nath Rai alias Guddu has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.5.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8884 of 2018. It was also contended that the role assigned to the present applicant is absolutely identical to that of co-accused Dharmendra Nath Rai alias Guddu, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 6.1.2017.
The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, he does not dispute the fact that the similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail by this Court.
Bail order of aforesaid co-accused has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant. The same is taken on record.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Ratnesh Rai alias Chandan Rai involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702,, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Order Date :- 6.7.2018
Puspendra
