Allahabad High Court
Rohit vs State Of U.P. on 22 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92824
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18261 of 2024
Applicant :- Rohit
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.993 of 2023, under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Shikohabad, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person Arun @ Kanha has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11275 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.4.2024. 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.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 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, 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. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.
8. Let the applicant- Rohit, 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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 based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
