AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.438, Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.41/2019 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Ashoknagar in relation to the offence punishable under Section 306 and 34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated. Co-accused has already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.36494/2019. There is no evidence against the present applicant. At the most of offences registered against the applicant wherein the applicant has been acquitted by the trial Court. There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation. Under these circumstances, counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that fifteen cases have been registered against the present applicant. He is a habitual offender. It is further submitted that most of them have been registered under Section 307 of IPC. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
On perusal of the record, it is apparent that fifteen cases have been registered against the present applicant wherein one under Section 302 of IPC and two under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and remaining thirteen cases are of different sections.
In Nanha vs. State of UP [1993 Cri.L.J. 938], the issue with regard to grant of bail on the basis of parity has been elaborately discussed, wherein it is observed as under:
"Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications when the bail applications of the co-accused whose bail application had been earlier rejected are allowed and co-accused is released on bail.
The Court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigation or otherwise and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant.
In the light of the above annunciation of law, in the opinion of this Court, while deciding bail application on the ground of parity, following factors are relevant for consideration:
(i) Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications.
(ii) More materials placed before the Court with regard to the case, further developments in the investigation and other reasoned considerations may be considered as sufficient grounds for consideration.
(iii) The Court is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity even where the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused contains reason, if the same has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principles and ignoring the relevant facts essential for grant of bail.
(iv) Failure of justice may be occasioned if bail is granted to an accused on the basis of parity with another co-accused whose bail order does not contain any reason.
(v) If an order granting bail to co-accused is not supported by reasons, the same cannot form the basis of granting bail to an accused on the ground of parity.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the gravity of offence, without commenting on the merits of the, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate at this stage to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Consequently, the application is dismissed.
A copy of the order be given to the learned Panel Lawyer with a direction to keep the same in the concerned case diary.