Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 268 (CHH)

BALCHAND BHARTI v. STATE OF C. G.

2009-10-21

T.P.SHARMA

body2009
ORAL ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 91/2008, registered at Police Station Bamhanidih, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the LP.C. & 4 of the Examination Act. 3. This is the fourth bail application filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail. No other application of this nature is pending before this Court or before the Court below. The application is supported by the affidavit of Biharilal Bharti, brother of the applicant. 4. Previous bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the third bail application of the applicant herein has been dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 11-5-2009, but after dismissal of the third bail application of the applicant herein, this Court has granted bail to the other co-accused persons namely, Deepak Singh & Phoolsai Kashyap vide its orders dated 24-9-2009 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2023/ 2009 & 31-7-2009 passed in M.Cr.C. (A) No.505/2009. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant herein and other co-accused Gulab Singh Banjare are in custody. The applicant herein is in custody since 16 months. Learned counsel also submits that the case of the applicant herein is on better footing than that of the case of Deepak Singh & Phoolsai Kashyap who have been granted bail and the applicant herein is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matters of Janardan Prasad Tiwari @ Shravan Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of M.P-1, Manohar Vs. State of M.P-2, Dhappu Nishad Vs. State of M.P-3, Badri Nihale and others Vs. State of M.P-4, Shobha Ram Vs. State of U.P-, Yunis and another Vs. State of U.P-6, Nazir Mesiah Vs. The State-7 & Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha Vs. State of U.P-8 in which bail on the ground of parity has been granted to other co-accused. 1. 2005(5) MPHT 15 (NOC) 2. 2007(3) MPHT 349 3. 2005(4) MPHT24 (NOC) 4. 2005(4) MPHT361 5. 1992 Cri.L.J. 1371 6. 1999 Cri.L.J. 4094 7. 1970 Cri.L.J. 52 8. 1993 Cri.L.J. 938 6. The State-7 & Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha Vs. State of U.P-8 in which bail on the ground of parity has been granted to other co-accused. 1. 2005(5) MPHT 15 (NOC) 2. 2007(3) MPHT 349 3. 2005(4) MPHT24 (NOC) 4. 2005(4) MPHT361 5. 1992 Cri.L.J. 1371 6. 1999 Cri.L.J. 4094 7. 1970 Cri.L.J. 52 8. 1993 Cri.L.J. 938 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the application and submitted that the aforesaid ground has been considered by this Court in the matter of Balchand Bharti Vs. State of C.G.-9 and the Court has dismissed the bail application. 9. 2009(2) CGLJ 57 7. Previously, three bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed by this Court. After dismissal of the previous bail applications of the applicant herein, the bail applications of co-accused persons have been allowed by this Court. 8. Normally, the co-accused is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. In the matter of Yunis (supra), the Allahabad High Court has held that the grow1d of parity cannot be applied for rejecting the bail application of co-accused. A co-accused cannot be denied bail, merely on the ground that the bail of another co-accused has been rejected by the Court earlier, the obvious reason being that while the earlier bail order denying bail to another co-accused was passed, the latter co-accused applying for bail was not heard. 9. In the matter of Nanha-8 (supra), Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the only ground of parity is not sufficient for enlarging the accused on bail, but the Court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigations or otherwise and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. Para 24 of the said judgment reads thus, "24. My answer to the points referred to us is that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications when the bail applications of the co-accused whose bail application had been earlier rejected are allowed and co-accused is released on bail. Even then the Court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigations or otherwise and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. Even then the Court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigations or otherwise and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. If on examination of a given case, it transpires that the case of the applicant before the court is identically similar to the accused on facts and circumstances who has been bailed out, then the desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should be also released on bail. As regards the second part of the referred question my answer is that it is not at all necessary for an accused to state in his application that the application of a co-accused had been rejected previously." 10. In t0he present case, three consecutive bail applications of the applicant have been rejected on merits. Parity should not be the sole ground for release of the accused. Bail orders relating to other co-accused reveal that both the parties have not brought the fact that three bail applications of co-accused has been rejected on merits, at the time of passing of the order. After rejection of three consecutive bail applications of the applicant on merits, I do not find any ground for release of the applicant on bail only on the sole ground of parity. Consequently, the fourth bail application is also dismissed. Application Dismissed.