High Court While Declining Bail To Petitioner Did Not Distinguish Bail Granted To Co-Accused By Coordinate Benches: Apex Court Issues Notice

Accordingly, a bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Taking into consideration the fact that two coordinate benches of the same High Court have granted bail to the two other co-accused and while rejecting the present application, the learned Judge of the High Court has not even considered as to what are the distinguishing features qua the petitioner, we are inclined to 2 issue notice, returnable within four weeks”.

AOR T. N. Singh appeared for the petitioner.

In the present matter, a bench of the Allahabad High Court noted that it was the second bail application of the present petitioner under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure  seeking enlargement on bail for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 325, 307, 302/34 IPC. The first bail application was rejected by the Court through an order dated April 21, 2022.

The AGA for the State strongly opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order. It was further argued that in the trial three witnesses of fact being Guddi (one of the injured), Kallu and Mukesh are yet to be examined. It was argued that looking to the same and also the fact that trial is under progress and the two witnesses examined therein have supported the prosecution case, no case for bail is made out and the bail application should be rejected.

The High Court had rejected the first bail application while observing, “After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the FIR along with four other accused persons, in the statement of the first informant and the injured persons. In the present case there are two injured witnesses being Smt. Guddi Devi and Indrapal, the wife and son of the deceased Vijay Pal. The place of occurrence is in front and near the house of Sallu, the co-accused who is the father of the applicant. The case cannot be stated to be a case of free fight. The role has been assigned to the applicant. The incident is of 11 a.m., as such it is a day-light incident. The medical evidence corroborates with the prosecution case in full”.

Accordingly, through the impugned order, a bench of Justice Samit Gopal had noted, “The trial in the present case is under progress in which two witnesses have been examined. Guddi (one of the injured) and two other witnesses of facts, namely, Kallu and Mukesh are yet to be examined. The two witnesses who have been examined have supported the prosecution case. In so far as the parity of bail being granted to the co-accused concerned, the same is not binding on this Court”.

Cause Title: Arun Yadav v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh