Allahabad High Court
Sunil Yadav @ Jeda vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 10 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20213
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3045 of 2025
Applicant :- Sunil Yadav @ Jeda
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Riyaz Ahmad,Hemant Kumar Pandey,Osama Syed
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Shri Riyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State, Shri Shashank Shekhar Shukla, the learned counsel for the informant, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.794 of 2024 under Sections 70(1), 115(2), 140(1), 191(2) B.N.S. registered at Police Station- P.G.I., District- Lucknow.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 30.11.2024 against eight named persons, including the applicant, and some unnamed persons, stating that the informant had gone to a hotel to see her friends Mahi at about 08:30 PM on 23.11.2024. Upon coming out of the hotel at about 09:50 PM, while her two friends had sat in the Cab and she was waiting for the Cab, two Dezire cars came there and she was forcibly put in one of the two Cars. A Scorpio vehicle followed the two Cars. More than ten men - including seven named men and other unknown men, and a girl were sitting in the three vehicles. They took her on Sultanpur road for about 100 to 150 Km and all the accused persons raped her and beaten her. They dropped her back at Telibagh at about 03:00 AM and they put her in an auto-rickshaw while she was in an unconscious condition. She went to P.G.I. Police Station from where she was taken to Trauma Centre.
4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she reiterated the F.I.R. version.
5. The medico-legal examination report mentions that the informant's husband had taken her to Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute Of Medical Sciences, where the informant told the Doctor that she is aged about 28 years, seven named male persons and a woman were her assailants and all the assailants had kidnapped and gang-raped her. However, she stated that her genital areas had been forcibly washed off and her mouth had also been forcibly washed off. No obvious injury was found on the genitals of the informant. The informant did not give consent for detection of internal injuries. Although vaginal swab and other samples were collected for pathological examination but there is no mention of any findings in the pathological report which might support the allegation of commission of gang-rape. However, the informant had preorbital redness and bruise on right eye, scratch marks on neck and chest, abrasion / scratch mark on right forearm, and a bruise on left leg.
6. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she alleged that on the date of the incident, first she had gone to the house of her friend Pooja. Then she went with Pooja to the Hotel, where she met Mahi and her friends. They talked for an hour. Then Mahi received a Phone call from Vivek but she said that she would talk after becoming free. She asked to go to 1090 and they booked an Ola cab. As soon as they got out of the Hotel room, Aman stopped her and said that it was someone's birthday and he had not been called. The informant stopped to listen to him and thereafter she proceeded towards Ola. While she was about 20 steps away, a Dezire car came, in which Kishal Yadav was sitting and he asked her to sit in the car. Seema, Dharmendra, Vivek and Akhilesh were sitting in it. Vivek got out of the car, abused and slapped her. Kishan caught hold of her hair and pulled her inside the car. Dharmendra kept on pushing her head down for three hours. Dharmendra and Akhilesh had burnt her with cigarette. They had beaten her with iron rod and with elbow. Seema hit her sandal on her head. All of them had beaten her collectively. Kishan called Sunil Yadav and said that they had picked up the informant and he should also join to have fun. Sunil came to Sultanpur Toll with his vehicle. All of them crossed the toll after Sunil had arrived. Akhilesh, Vivek, Dharmendra, Sunil and Ranjeet had put their private parts in her mouth at a secluded place. Sunny came there and he beaten her and forcibly made physical relation with her and he also put his private part inside her. Thereafter all of them raped her. All of them had condoms and they used it while having sex. The only female person Seema present there was exhorting them to rape her and was hurling dirty abuses. Only Kishan did not have sex with her. Kishan's wife made a phone call and said that Police had reached their home. There were three vehicles. She told the registration number of one of the Vehicles and said it was a Dezire car. They made her sit straight. Seema asked others to kill the informant and to throw her away. They stopped at a Petrol Pump and made her rinse her mouth with Colgate and Seema went in another Car. At another Petrol Pump Seema got her down the car and washed her private parts and made her wear half-pants. Her upper clothes were torn. Her phone was reset. They crossed two tolls and then stopped at a tea stall. She was again threatened of being kidnapped. They dropped her in front of a hospital at about 03.19 PM and made her sit in a battery rickshaw. From there she went straight to the Police Station. Her report was lodged with some delay. He husband got her examined medically.
7. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The involvement of the applicant in eight other cases has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit, in two of which he has already been granted bail, in one case he has been exonerated and in rest of the cases he has not been summoned till date.
8. It has further been stated in the affidavit that the informant had earlier also lodged an F.I.R. No.262 of 2023 against five named persons, including the co-accused Sunil Yadav alleging that she had gone to the house of her friend-accused Safalta Pathak, where some illicit dirty activities were being carried out. The informant tried to videograph the incident whereupon the accused persons forced her to join the dirty deeds being committed there.
9. Another F.I.R. No.265 of 2023 was lodged in Police Station- Ashiyana, District- Lucknow on 27.06.2023 by the police against five persons, including Safalta Pathak, alleging that the accused persons were involved in illegal flesh trade. The informant claims that the said F.I.R. was lodged at her behest.
10. An F.I.R. No.397 of 2024 for offences under Sections 308(2) and 352 B.N.S. was lodged in Police Station-Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow against the informant of the present case and two other persons alleging that the informant of the case had booked Escort Services to be rendered by two particular girls but when the girls reached there, they were different from the girls whose photographs were shown at the time of booking. The present informant was one of the girls who had reached there and when the informant of that case declined to avail her services, she threatened and blackmailed him.
11. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the applicant stating that co-accused Seema Yadav has been granted bail by means of an order dated 24.02.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.1689 of 2025. Another co-accused Ranjeet Yadav has also been granted bail by means of an order dated 04.04.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2846 of 2025 after hearing submissions advanced on behalf of learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the informant.
12. Learned A.G.A.-I has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted on 01.03.2025.
13. Shri Shashank Shekhar Shukla, the learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has produced a print out containing two photographs showing a car of Hyundai Company and two other photographs showing a Car of Maruti Suzuki Company and containing a certificate issued by Pawan Sharma stating that Vehicle No.UP32-VN-9927 had crossed Amroha Toll Plaza at 01:30 AM on 24.11.2024 and Vehicle No.UP32-MH-3137 had crossed the Toll Plaza at 12:08 AM and 01:09 AM on 24.11.2024. However, the photographs show none of the occupants of any of the vehicles.
14. He has forwarded a three page printed write-up of his notes which states that the principle of parity in bail matter refers to the idea that similarly situated co-accused should be treated equally regarding bail. However, recent judgments indicate that this principle is not absolute and must be applied judiciously, considering the specific circumstances of each case. The grant of bail is a matter of judicial discretion and must be exercised based on the facts of each case, rather than mechanically applying the principle of parity.
15. On this point, he has referred to the judgments provided in his write-up, which reads as follows:-
"Parity Not Applicable in Bail Matters
Overview
The principle of parity in bail matters refers to the idea that similarly situated co-accused should be treated equally regarding bail. However, recent judgments indicate that this principle is not absolute and must be applied judiciously, considering the specific circumstances of each case.
Key Legal Principles
Judicial Discretion:
The grant of bail is a matter of judicial discretion and must be exercised based on the facts of each case, rather than mechanically applying the principle of parity RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD VS VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA MAKWANA (KOLI) - Supreme Court (2021)NANHA S/o NABHAN KHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad (1992).
Role of the Accused:
The role of the accused in the alleged crime is crucial. Parity cannot be claimed solely based on the fact that co-accused have been granted bail; the specific circumstances and roles must be evaluated Lohitha VS State - Karnataka (2022)Satyendra Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (1996).
Nature and Gravity of Offence:
The seriousness of the charges and the evidence against the accused are significant factors. For serious charges, such as murder, the court may deny bail even if co-accused have been granted bail under similar circumstances Manno Lal Jaiswal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Supreme Court (2022)BHAGAT SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad (2009).
Consistency in Decisions:
While consistency in bail decisions is important, it does not mean that a bail order for one accused automatically applies to others. Each case must be assessed on its own merits, and the court must consider whether all relevant factors were taken into account in previous bail decisions Rajpal VS State of Rajasthan - Supreme Court (2023)SUBASH VS STATE OF U P - Allahabad (2006).
Exceptions to Parity:
Parity may not apply if the accused has a distinct role in the crime or if there are significant differences in the circumstances surrounding each accused. For instance, if one accused has a history of tampering with evidence or has a more serious criminal background, this may justify a denial of bail despite the granting of bail to co-accused NANHA S/o NABHAN KHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad (1992)Neeru Yadav VS State of U. P. - Supreme Court (2015).
Relevant Case Law
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana: The Supreme Court emphasized that while parity is a consideration, it cannot be the sole basis for granting bail. The court must consider the totality of circumstances Lohitha VS State - Karnataka (2022).
Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. Munni Singh: The court noted that for serious charges, the mere fact that co-accused were granted bail does not compel the same outcome for another accused Mangesh VS State - Bombay (2020).
Conclusion
The principle of parity is not an absolute rule in bail matters. Courts must carefully evaluate the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the role of the accused, the nature of the charges, and any relevant prior decisions. While consistency is desirable, it should not override the need for a thorough judicial assessment of each individual case.
Recommendations
When arguing for bail based on parity, ensure to highlight the specific circumstances that align with the co-accused''s case while also addressing any distinguishing factors.
Prepare to counter arguments that emphasize the gravity of the charges or the accused''s criminal history, which may negate the applicability of parity.
References:Manno Lal Jaiswal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Supreme Court (2022)Rajpal VS State of Rajasthan - Supreme Court (2023)Lohitha VS State - Karnataka (2022)Mangesh VS State - Bombay (2020)NANHA S/o NABHAN KHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad (1992)BHAGAT SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad (2009)RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD VS VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA MAKWANA (KOLI) - Supreme Court (2021)Satyendra Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (1996)Neeru Yadav VS State of U. P. - Supreme Court (2015)SUBASH VS STATE OF U P - Allahabad (2006).]."
16. Part III of the Allahabad High Court Rules contains provisions regarding Criminal Jurisdiction. Chapter XVIII falling in Part III of the Rules deals with Proceedings Other Than Original Trials. Rule 3(2) falling in Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules provides that:-
"If the advocates are relying upon any judgment, they must have three photocopies thereof ready, two for the judges and one for the other side."
17. Although the write-up provided by the learned counsel for the informant referred to as many as 12 cases, he has not provided the citation of any of the judgments and photocopy of none of the judgments have been provided by the learned counsel for the informant to the Court.
18. The bail order granted to a co-accused Ranjeet Yadav runs into four pages and the concluding paragraph of the judgment containing brief reasons for the order, is as follows:-
"14. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the allegation is of commission of rape by eight persons but no injury was visible on her private parts and she declined internal examination for ascertainment of any injury and the allegation is not supported by pathological examination report; there is a long chain of incidents leading to lodging of F.I.R.s at the behest of the informant as also against her containing allegations of commission of misdeeds, including sexual offences and that the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime. "
19. The factual narration made above indicates that the allegations against the applicant and Ranjeet Yadav are similar that both of them have put their private parts inside the mouth of the victim and thereafter all the accused persons, including the applicant and Ranjeet Yadav, had raped her.
20. The Court appreciates the concern of the learned counsel for the informant to ensure that no injustice is done by the Court and his submission that the Courts must carefully evaluate the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the role of the accused, the nature of the charges and relevant precedents. However, had the learned counsel for the informant gone through the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2846 of 2025 granting bail to co-accused Ranjeet Yadav, there should have been no apprehension that this Court would not carefully evaluate the specific facts and circumstances of the case and role of the accused. Further, this Court would have appreciated the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the informant more, had he himself been careful in providing assistance to the Court and he would have provided photocopies of the case laws provided by him or at least the citation of those cases.
21. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the allegation is of commission of rape by eight persons but no injury was visible on her private parts and she declined internal examination for ascertainment of any injury and the allegation is not supported by pathological examination report; there is a long chain of incidents leading to lodging of F.I.R.s at the behest of the informant as also against her containing allegations of commission of misdeeds, including sexual offences and that the investigation already stands concluded and that the two co-accused persons have already been granted bail and allegations against the applicant are similar to the allegations levelled against co-accused Ranjeet Yadav, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.
22. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.
23. Let the applicant- Sunil Yadav @ Jeda be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]
Order Date :- 10.4.2025
-Amit K-
