Allahabad High Court
Santosh vs State Of U.P. on 10 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84801
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15611 of 2024
Applicant :- Santosh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.94 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras, during the pendency of trial.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person Rampal Singh has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10311 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.03.2024. 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 assigned to the applicant stands explained. In support of his 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 for bail is made out.
7. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has 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, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.
9. Let the applicant-Santosh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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 based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Ravi Kant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
