Allahabad High Court
Rahul vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44574 of 2020
Applicant :- Rahul
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishesh Kumar,Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Babloo Pant
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Heard Shri Devesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court on 28.11.2019.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 207 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused persons, Vinesh Kumar, Dinesh and Sunil, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 22.02.2021, 16.06.2020 and 06.03.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.13959 of 2020, 35502 of 2020 and 8063 of 2020. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.07.2019, having no criminal history. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
6. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by him.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Cri.L.J. 938, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.
8. Let the applicant- Rahul involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
Ravi Kant
