Allahabad High Court
Mudassir vs State Of U.P. on 13 March, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10598 of 2023
Applicant :- Mudassir
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Shri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.930 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person Sayra Bano has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45441 of 2021. It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant except his confession before the police which is not admissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said fact has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Venkatesh alias Chandra vs. State of Karnataka, AIROnline 2022 SC 595. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.06.2021, having no criminal history. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Let the applicant- Mudassir 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.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. 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 :- 13.3.2023
Ravi Kant
