The Court allowed a bail application filed by Rajendra @ Rajnath, citing the principle of parity with co-accused already released, granting bail subject to standard conditions including execution of a personal bond and furnishing sureties.
Applicant released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34085 of 2018
Applicant :- Rajendra @ Rajnath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused namely, Umesh Yadav and Rajesh Yadav have already been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 22.5.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19178 of 2018, copy whereof has been filed as annexure-7 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Umesh Yadav and Rajesh Yadav who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter has not been disputed by him.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the
merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant, Rajendra @ Rajnath be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 69 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 452 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kerakat, district-Jaunpur with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 24.10.2018 Faridul
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with similarly placed co-accused already released on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶8
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra @ Rajnath
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
