Allahabad High Court
Sarvesh vs State Of U.P on 18 January, 2021
Bench: Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 32
Case :- BAIL No. - 6003 of 2018
Applicant :- Sarvesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P
Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Pradhan,Anil Kumar Tripathi,Vindesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant/accused in Case Crime No. 376 of 2015, registered under Section 302 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pasgawan, District Kheri.
The facts as alleged in the F.I.R. in short are as under:-
On 21.08.2015 at about 09:30 a.m. the informant, wife of the deceased was present on the gate of her house. The parents of the informant were also present, as they had come to take the informant to her parental house. The husband of the informant namely Prem Chandra came there with milk and as soon as he reached on the gate, the present accused alongwith other co-accused persons came there and dragged the deceased into their house and accused Sarvesh son of Bankey Nai fired upon him with country made pistol and other accused persons Raj Kumar (Bail No. 1100 of 2019 second bail ) and Lallan (Bail No. 11089 of 2019, first bail) exhorted and dragged the deceased inside the house, there they all killed the deceased with 'Banka'. The motive of the murder was that the deceased was issueless and suffering from cancer. To meet the financial need for the treatment he was trying to sell his agricultural fields, which the accused persons do not want.
Learned counsel for the accused/applicant argued that trial is getting delayed and other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, so this accused should also be granted bail, as the trial is getting delayed.
Learned counsel for the accused/applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba Vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) 12 SCC 505"
Contrary to it, learned counsel for the State submits that this accused is the main accused and delay only cannot be a ground for granting the bail. Status report has been called for previously by this Court and trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, and the trial court is proceeding with the trial and that will be concluded very soon.
Learned counsel for the State further submits that parity cannot be granted to this applicant/accused, because the role assigned to this accused was different from other co-accused persons. Further more co-accused Raj Kumar and Lallan were granted bail on health grounds, and while granting bail to co-accused Sarvesh son of Bankey Lal, though the ground of delay was contended on behalf of the accused, but that was not the sole ground for granting the bail, hence the bail should be rejected.
Considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record.
From the perusal of the record it is clear that co-accuse Raj Kumar (Bail No. 1100 of 2019 second bail ) and Lallan (Bail No. 11089 of 2019, first bail) were granted bail on health grounds . The perusal of the bail order or the co-accused Sarvesh son of Bankey Lal (Bail No. 9243 of 2016) shows that the Court while granting bail has not specifically mentioned that accused Sarvesh is being enlarged on bail on the ground of delay. Gone through the case law Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). Perusal of it makes it clear that in this matter the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the medical condition also of the petitioner. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below:-
"Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner."
The perusal of the F.I.R. and the statement of the wife of the deceased before the Court shows that the main role has been assigned to this accused as fire arm injury allegedly caused by this accused. Under these circumstances this co-accused cannot claim parity.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case without commenting on merits, this Court does not find it fit to enlarge the applicant/accused on bail. Hence the bail application of the accused/applicant deserves to be rejected.
The bail application is accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021
A.K. Singh
