Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 130 (UTT)

JAVED @ KALA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-02-22

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Umar with Mr. Raj Kumar, Singh Advocates for the applicant and Mr. D.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The applicant is in jail having been implicated in Case Crime No. 58 of 2016, which has been registered under Sections 363/370(4)/34 of IPC at Police Station – Peeran Kaliyar, District Haridwar. 3. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2016. 4. After the first bail application of the applicant was rejected, this Court has been apprised that the other co-accused to whom the role of even lesser magnitude has been assigned have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Reference is being given to First Bail Application Nos. 1100 of 2016, 1255 of 2016 and 1120 of 2016. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon a decision of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanha Vs. State of U.P, reported in 1993 CRI. L. J. 938, where the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has held for the reason of equity and fairness, if a bail has been rejected in the case of one co-accused and subsequently, the bail has been granted to another accused by another Coordinate Bench, where the role assigned is similar, the other co-accused, who have been denied bail should be granted bail. 6. Considering the above facts and overall evidence which is presently available before this Court, the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail on parity in view of the above judgment, and on consideration of the nature of the case as well. The bail application is accordingly allowed. 7. 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 amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned/court concerned. 8. 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.