Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 141 (UTT)

Jamil v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-03-28

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Dy. Advocate General assisted by Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The applicant is in jail having been implicated in F.I.R No.46 of 2015, which has been registered under Sections 392/411 of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 4/25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station I.T.I., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. This is the second bail application moved by the present applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2015. Trial is presently going on. Meanwhile, co-accused has been granted bail who has a case on similar footings. This fact is also admitted by Mr. V.K. Gemini, Dy. Advocate General for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court passed in Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No.792 of 1992 (Nanha Vs. State of U.P.) reported in 1993 CRI. L.J. 938. The matter was referred before Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court for giving a decision on a point which is as follows :- “Whether an accused is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity by moving a second or third bail application in a circumstance that at a later date a co-accused of the same criminal case with a similar role was granted bail by the another Hon’ble Judge before whom without disclosing the fact that the bail application of another co-accused with similar role had already been rejected, by another Bench, bail was granted.” 5. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court after going through all the aspects of the matter had given the following observations: “49. In the light of the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, the view expressed by K.K. Chaubey, J. does not hold ground. Judicial consistency is a sound principle and it cannot be thrown to the winds by the individual view of judges. After all it is settled law that judicial discretion cannot be arbitrarily exercised. Moreover high aspirations of the public from the courts will sink to depths or despair if contrary decisions are given on identical facts. All judicial and quasi-judicial authorities have not only to serve the public but also to create confidence in the mind of the public. After all it is settled law that judicial discretion cannot be arbitrarily exercised. Moreover high aspirations of the public from the courts will sink to depths or despair if contrary decisions are given on identical facts. All judicial and quasi-judicial authorities have not only to serve the public but also to create confidence in the mind of the public. Hence for the sake of uniformity and non-discrimination it is essential that uniform orders should be passed even in bail matters in case of persons who stand on the same footing. If the contrary course is adopted the public will loose confidence in the administration of justice.” 6. Mr. V.K. Gemini, Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of State admits that this matter is factually covered by the judgment of Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court inasmuch as co-accused has already been granted bail and his role is similar. 7. Considering the judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court passed in Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No.792 of 1992 (Nanha Vs. State of U.P.) reported in 1993 CRI. L.J. 938, this Court is persuaded on the ratio given by Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, prima facie, the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail. The second bail application is allowed accordingly. 8. Considering the overall facts which are presently available on record, a case for bail is being made out by the applicant. This shall, however, be subject to the full cooperation of the applicant in the investigation, as well as his attendance in the on going trial. It is made clear that if the trial court comes to the conclusion at any time of the trial that applicant is misusing his bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail assigning reasons and in reference to this Court’s order. 9. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the equal amounts to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned/court concerned. 10. It is made clear that any observations made by this Court are only for the purposes of grant of bail. It shall not be taken into consideration at all in any other proceedings.