Allahabad High Court
Rahul vs State Of U.P. on 1 July, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106149
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19201 of 2024
Applicant :- Rahul
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Kaushik
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Birendra Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.451 of 2021, under Sections 452, 376-D, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Tappal, District- Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person Veekesh has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15946 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.1.2024. 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.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.
7. 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.
8. 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 Supreme 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 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, 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.
9. Let the applicant- Rahul involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
11. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. 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 :- 1.7.2024/ Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
