In a second bail application under Section 302 IPC, the court allowed bail based on parity with an identically placed co-accused who was earlier granted bail. The court directed expeditious trial under Section 309 CrPC.
Application allowed; applicant released on bail on bond and sureties subject to standard conditions including expeditious trial.
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. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46797 of 2018
Applicant :- Hansraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemlata Srivastava,Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Saxena
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
The applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime NO.351 of 2015 u/s 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act PS Koraon District Allahabad. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.3.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application co-accused Sharif @ Pappu has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.2.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46170 of 2018. 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. He submitted that as far as criminal history of the applicant is concerned, the same has been duly explained in para 4 onwards of the supplementary affidavit dated 24.5.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 2.1.2016.
The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by Mr. Yogeshwar Rai, learned A. G. A. However, he does not dispute the fact that the similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail by this Court.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A. G. A. and the fact that identically placed co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is deemed fit to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The bail application is accordingly allowed.
Let the applicant Hansraj 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 the aforesaid case crime with the following conditions:-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Order Date :- 19.7.2019 SP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on parity grounds as a similarly placed co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶18
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶18
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hansraj
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
