In a bail application under the Arms Act, the Court rejected the plea of parity based on a co-accused's release. Finding no fresh grounds for bail, the application was dismissed, but the trial was directed to be expedited with weekly effective hearing dates.
The bail application stands rejected.
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. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3527 of 2023
Applicant :- Tinku @ Sanjay Parihar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Mr. P.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.
This is a second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant, seeking bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2021, under Section 3/25(1)AA and 7/25(1) AA of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has urged, as a ground in aid of the second bail application, the fact that co-accused Abhinav alias Chinku Tiwari, wanted in the same crime, and from whom, one English rifle made in USA, a 30 spring field, was recovered, has been enlarged on bail on 21.07.2022 by a coordinate Bench of this Court, and therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
The learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea.
A reading of the recovery memo shows that from the applicant's possession, individually, a carbine machine gun was recovered and he was sitting in a car with others, who were armed with deadly weapons like Avtomat Kalashnikova-47 rifle and Indian Small Arms System Rifle.
Parity is a plea that is not always binding on the Court. In our considered opinion, there are no fresh grounds available to the applicant to entitle him to bail.
In view of the aforesaid, the bail application stands rejected .
However, it is directed that the trial shall be expedited in a manner that two dates of effective hearing shall be fixed every week.
Let this order be communicated to the Judge concerned through the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance).
Order Date :- 13.4.2023 I. Batabyal
Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of disparity in the bail status of a co-accused.
Whether fresh grounds are available to warrant the enlargement of this applicant on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tinku @ Sanjay Parihar
State of U.P.
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
