Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1897 (ALL)

Ram Prakash Pathak v. State of U. P. & Anr.

2013-07-19

SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE

body2013
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 2. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.8 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich. 3. The prosecution story is that the seven accused persons (including the applicant) who are named in the F.I.R. have been assigned the role of firing. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 06.01.2009 at 5.30 p.m. in Bahraich, Huzoorpur road and the F.I.R. in this case was lodged with promptness at 7.00 p.m. on the same day. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that all the accused persons have been assigned the similar role of firing and it is not clear that whose fire hit the deceased and caused fatal injury to the deceased. Further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that co-accused Aleem has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.5262 (B) of 2011. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prior to the order whereby another Bench of this Court has granted bail to the co-accused, bail prayer of other co-accused has been rejected by another Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the accused persons are deliberately avoiding the disposal of the case and all efforts are being made to delay the trial. Along with the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of complainant, several orders passed by the trial court and by this Court have been filed to establish that there is a deliberate attempt on behalf of the accused persons to delay the trial and there are also documents which suggests that the witnesses and the parokars of the case are being threatened on behalf of the accused persons not to do pairvi in this case. 6. It is true that the role of firing has been assigned to all the seven accused persons and they fired in broad day light on the deceased and he has received ten fire arm injuries on his body. 6. It is true that the role of firing has been assigned to all the seven accused persons and they fired in broad day light on the deceased and he has received ten fire arm injuries on his body. Such type of incident creates terror in the minds of the innocent society and in the interest of society cannot be overlooked. 7. In the case of Toran Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (H.C.) reported in ACC 2010 (69) 537, this Court after discussing the law on the point has held that the parity cannot be the sole ground to grant bail. In para 21 it was observed as under:- "In view of the observations made in aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered opinion that on granting bail by one Judge to any accused, another Judge is not under obligation to grant bail to similarly placed co-accused on the basis of the principle of parity without considering the merit. As held by Division Bench of this Court in Chander @ Chandra Vs. State of U.P., if the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused has been passed in flagrant violation of well-settled principle, then another Judge is not bound to release the similarly placed accused on bail and it is open to him to reject the bail application before him, as no Judge is obliged to pass orders against his conscience merely to main consistency. Therefore, in present case also, merely on the basis of the principle of parity, the applicants cannot be released on bail and the bail application of the applicants has to be considered on merit." 8. Similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vishram Vs. State of U.P. (H.C.-L.B.) reported in ACC 2011 (74) 61, has held in para 17 as under:- "In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail." 9. After going through the documents filed alongwith counter affidavit this Court is satisfied that the accused persons are making all efforts to avoid the final decision of the trial. The bail application of co-accused Abrar was rejected on 09.09.2010 and bail of another co-accused Indrajeet was rejected on 17.09.2010. This aspect was not considered in the order granting bail to co-accused. The bail application of co-accused Abrar was rejected on 09.09.2010 and bail of another co-accused Indrajeet was rejected on 17.09.2010. This aspect was not considered in the order granting bail to co-accused. This Court is satisfied after perusal of the documents filed along with counter affidavit that the accused persons are themselves responsible for the delay in the disposal of the case. Therefore, the applicant cannot take the ground that he is languishing in jail for the last about four and half years. The conduct of the accused persons is responsible for the delay in disposal of the case which is at the final stage of arguments and inspite of that efforts are being made to further delay the disposal of the case by moving vague and frivolous applications. 10. In view of the above and also considering the conduct of the accused and serious nature of allegation, this bail application is hereby rejected. 11. However, the trial court is directed to decide and conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned. _____________