Allahabad High Court
Anuj vs State Of U.P. on 31 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100469
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21519 of 2024
Applicant :- Anuj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhanshyam Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 88 of 2024, U/S 364A IPC, Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Munesh, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 8.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11042 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.2.2024 having no criminal history. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the 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 have been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by them.
6. 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.
7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Anuj, who is involved in aforementioned case crime number 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.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
9. 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 :- 31.5.2024
Shalini
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
