High Court · 2025

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated

19.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22517 of 2024 after considering the fact that from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu huge commercial quantity of ganja was recovered but she is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, all the above three co-accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu have been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.03.2025,

07.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.22495 of 2024, 22523 of 2024 and 22431 of 2024, respectively and case of applicant is exactly at par with them.

4. She further submits that even while granting bail to co-accused Ramesh, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also considered the provisions of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act.

5. She further submits that law is settled, all the accused persons of a case should be treated equally and therefore, on the sole ground of parity applicant should also be enlarged on bail.

6. She placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & another (2022) 10 SCC 51.

8. She further submits that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since

07.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 with a detailed order after considering the fact that from the possession of the applicant and three other accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu huge commercial quantity of ganja was recovered but could not dispute the fact that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, all the three co-accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu, who were arrested alongwith applicant, have been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and on facts, case of applicant is at par with them.

10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 07.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

11. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 after considering the fact that from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu huge commercial quantity of ganja was recovered but it reflects, after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, all the three accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu, who were arrested alongwith applicant, have been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and from perusal of the bail granting order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the bail application of co-accused Ramesh, it reflects, while enlarging him on bail, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also considered the provisions of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that all the accused of a case should be treated equally. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & another (2022) 10 SCC 51 in paragraph no. 98 has observed that- "Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."

13. Further, applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 07.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Ramyash, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

17. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated

19.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22517 of 2024 after considering the fact that from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu huge commercial quantity of ganja was recovered but she is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, all the above three co-accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu have been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.03.2025,

07.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.22495 of 2024, 22523 of 2024 and 22431 of 2024, respectively and case of applicant is exactly at par with them.

4. She further submits that even while granting bail to co-accused Ramesh, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also considered the provisions of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act.

5. She further submits that law is settled, all the accused persons of a case should be treated equally and therefore, on the sole ground of parity applicant should also be enlarged on bail.

6. She placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & another (2022) 10 SCC 51.

8. She further submits that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since

07.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 with a detailed order after considering the fact that from the possession of the applicant and three other accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu huge commercial quantity of ganja was recovered but could not dispute the fact that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, all the three co-accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu, who were arrested alongwith applicant, have been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and on facts, case of applicant is at par with them.

10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 07.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

11. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 after considering the fact that from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu huge commercial quantity of ganja was recovered but it reflects, after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, all the three accused Ramesh, Awadhesh Kumar and Ved Prakash Alias Monu, who were arrested alongwith applicant, have been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and from perusal of the bail granting order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the bail application of co-accused Ramesh, it reflects, while enlarging him on bail, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also considered the provisions of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that all the accused of a case should be treated equally. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & another (2022) 10 SCC 51 in paragraph no. 98 has observed that- "Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."

13. Further, applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 07.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Ramyash, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

17. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad