Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 218 (UTT)

RAJDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-04-07

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. B.M. Pingal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The applicant is in jail having been implicated in FIR No. 54 of 2015, which has been registered under Sections 302/201/394/411 & 120B of IPC at Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. 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 28.03.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are total four accused in the matter and after the rejection of the first bail application of the present applicant on 28.03.2016, other co-accused who were assigned the similar role have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which is subsequent to the rejection of the bail application of the present applicant. Further the applicant is in jail since 11.07.2015. 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 held as under:- “The argument of the learned State Counsel is that it is open to different Judges to reject or grant bail to accused even if their cases stand on same footing. I am unable to persuade myself to accept this submission of the learned State Counsel. The High Court is one Court and each Judge is not a separate High Court. It will be unfortunate if the High Court delivers inconsistent verdicts on identical facts. If the argument of the learned State Counsel is carried further it would mean that even the same Judge while deciding bail application moved by several accused, whose cases stand on the same footing, is free to reject or grant bail to any one or more of them at his whim. Such a course would be wholly arbitrary. The public, whose interests all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities ultimately have to serve, will get a poor impression of a court which delivers contrary decisions on identical facts. Hence for the sake of judicial uniformity and non-discrimination it is essential that if the High Court granted bail to one co-accused it should also grant bail to another co-accused whose case stands on the same footing. Hence for the sake of judicial uniformity and non-discrimination it is essential that if the High Court granted bail to one co-accused it should also grant bail to another co-accused whose case stands on the same footing. Alexis de Toqueville remarked that a man’s passion for equality is greater than his desire for liberty.” 6. Considering the facts that the accused is in jail since 11.07.2015 and the co-accused have already been granted bail as well as considering the observation made by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanha (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is liable to be released on bail, at least on ground of parity. Bail application is, therefore, 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 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.