High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38443 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9041 of 2025 Applicant :- Paramhans Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atharva Dixit,Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Sri Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, learned Advocate, filed his power on behalf of informant, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned brief holder for the State- respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 414 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 34, 323, 427, 352, 452, 504, 307, 302 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Rudrapur, District- Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with as many as 27 named accused and 50 unknown accused persons on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. 5. He further submitted that actually, it is a case, in which informant side was the real aggressor and however, from the side of informant five persons died but from the side of applicant also one person died and from his side also a FIR was lodged. 6. He further submitted that after considering entire facts of the case in detail, co-accused Bechu Rajbhar, Parshuram Rajbhar, Pradeep Rajbhar, Ramayan Pal, Sugreev Pal and Diwakar Tiwari have been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 27 and case of applicant is exactly at par with them. 7. He further submitted that however, bail application of co- accused Aniruddha Yadav has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27917 of 2024 but case of applicant is distinguishable from him as according to prosecution, on his pointing out, a blood stained wooden log was recovered, which alleged to have been used in the crime. 8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 03.10.2023 i.e. for last more than a year. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a five murder case and applicant was named in the FIR but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that along with the applicant, 27 named persons and 50 unknown persons were made accused and from the side of applicant also one person died and from his side also a FIR was lodged. 10. They further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Bechu Rajbhar, Parshuram Rajbhar, Pradeep Rajbhar, Ramayan Pal, Sugreev Pal and Diwakar Tiwari have been released on bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court and their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 27 and case of applicant is exactly at par with them. 11. However, they further submitted that, bail application of co- accused Aniruddha Yadav has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court but they fairly conceded that case of applicant is distinguishable from him. 12. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than a year. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. However, applicant was named in the FIR along with others and as per prosecution, due to assault made by applicant and others, as many as five persons died but from the FIR of the case, it reflects that applicant has been named in the FIR along with 27 named and 50 unknown persons and only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. 15. Further, record also suggests that in the alleged incident, from the side of applicant also one person died and from his side also a FIR was lodged. 16. Record also suggests that along with applicant, co-accused Bechu Rajbhar, Parshuram Rajbhar, Pradeep Rajbhar, Ramayan Pal, Sugreev Pal and Diwakar Tiwari were also made accused and they have been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and on facts, case of applicant is at par with them. 17. 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." 18. Therefore, after considering observation made by the Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil(supra), on the ground of parity itself applicant can be enlarged on bail. 19. Further, however, bail application of co-accused Aniruddha Yadav has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court but it appears, on facts, case of applicant is distinguishable from him as on his pointing out, a blood stained wooden log was recovered, which alleged to have been used in the crime. 20. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 03.10.2023 i.e. for last more than a year. 21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 23. Let the applicant- Paramhans Yadav 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. 24. 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. 25. 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 :- 18.3.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad