Smt Mavia B vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 17346 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt Mavia B vs State Of U.P. on 15 May, 2024

Author: Ajay Bhanot

Bench: Ajay Bhanot

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:87765
 
Court No. - 64
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18848 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Smt Mavia B
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
 

Matter is taken up in the revised call. Heard Shri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I for the State.

This is the second bail application.

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 0088 of 2023 at Police Station Civil Line District Rampur under Sections 302, 452, 504, 120B I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 24.05.2023.

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 31.01.2024.

The trial is on foot. One subsequent development has been brought to the notice on which the bail application is being pressed. Co-accused Jaha Aara has been enlarged on bail. The judgment in the case of Jaha Aara does not come into aid of the applicant for various reasons. Firstly, the case of the applicant is distinguishable from Jaha Aara. The applicant has been identified as the principal offender who lit the matchstick and burnt the deceased to death. The applicant was also nominated by the deceased in her dying declaration. A dying declaration in appropriate facts and circumstances can become the basis of conviction as happened in this case. (This observation shall not influence the trial court in the trial). Most importantly, the victim's dying declaration was not referred to this Court when the bail of Jaha Aara was granted. The husband who turned hostile was not an eye witness to the incident. Moreover, there is one more aspect. Parity can be sought only if all correct facts have been referred to and noticed by the coordinate Bench. However, in the instant case as stated earlier the incriminating facts were not referred to the learned Court when the said bail was granted. In this manner the roles of the accused becomes distinguishable. Congruency in roles is the basis for parity in relief. At this stage, no fresh ground for bail is made out.

Without going into the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed.

Learned District Judge as well as trial judge shall ensure strict compliance of the order passed by this Court in the first bail application dated 31.01.2024 registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51223 of 2023 (Smt Mavia B vs. State of U.P.).

A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Rampur by the Registrar (Compliance) by E-mail.

Order Date :- 15.5.2024

Vandit