Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2471 (ALL)

Lalji v. State of U. P.

2015-08-18

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. 2. Perused the record. 3. This is second bail application of the applicants. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 4.6.2015. 4. Submission of the counsel for the applicants is that the main accused of the case namely Nanhakoo @ Suraj, who is allegedly said to have committed rape on the victim, has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 1.6.2015. Further submission is that actually this fact was not in the know of the applicant and, therefore, was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing and because of this, the first bail application was rejected on 4.6.2015. It is further submitted that as the role of the applicants is of an ancillary nature while the major allegation of rape has been made against the co-accused who has been released on bail, therefore, the second bail application may now be reconsidered on the fresh ground of the bail order passed in favour of the co-accused. It has also been pointed out that the accused are not having any criminal history and they are in jail since 30.4.2015 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the record in the light of the same. It is apparent that the bail of the main accused Nanhakoo @ Suraj, who had committed rape on the victim, has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court but somehow this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. But in the background of the fact, I think that it shall be appropriate to release the applicant on bail as the case of the applicant? is not on worse footing than that of the co-accused who has already been released on bail. It is true that the principle of parity is not an absolute principle of law and there are many situations in which another Court may take a different view even though apparently the allegations against the co-accused may be similar and the case of the applicants may be ostensibly looking of parity. It is true that the principle of parity is not an absolute principle of law and there are many situations in which another Court may take a different view even though apparently the allegations against the co-accused may be similar and the case of the applicants may be ostensibly looking of parity. But in order to take a different view, there are needed strong circumstances. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that now in order to keep public faith in the administration of justice and its uniformity the applicant deserves to be released on bail as his case is not on graver footing than the case of the main co-accused who has already been released on bail by another Bench. 7. Let the applicants-Lalji and Jwala, involved in Case Crime No. 2 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi, be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions : - (1) The applicants will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicants will personally appear on each and every date in the court and their personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.