The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI another

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 on merit by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the grounds that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant when informant, injured of the case namely Harun and one another witness Zaki appeared before the trial court then they did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile and after considering this fact, co- accused Rahat and Harun have been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.07.2025 and 09.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.26302 of 2024 and 23421 of 2023, respectively.

4. He further submits that as far as allegation levelled against applicant is concerned, case of applicant is also exactly at par with co-accused Rahat and Harun, who have already been released on bail.

5. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having previous criminal history of three other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant second bail application and all the cases relate to minor offences and in all these cases, applicant is on bail.

6. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 18.04.2022 i.e. for last more than three years.

7. 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 after considering the entire facts in detail but could not dispute the fact that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant when informant, injured of the case namely Harun and one another witness Zaki appeared before the trial court then they did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile.

8. He further could not dispute the fact that after considering the above facts, co-accused Rahat and Harun have been released on bail by this Court and case of applicant is at par with them.

9. He however, further submits that apart from the present case, applicant is having previous criminal history of three other cases but could not dispute the fact that all the cases relate to minor offences and in all these cases, applicant is on bail.

10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 18.04.2022 i.e. for last more than three years.

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

12. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court after considering the merit of the case but it reflects, after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant when informant, injured of the case namely Harun and one another witness Zaki appeared before the trial court then they did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile.

13. Further, after considering the above facts, bail applications of co-accused Rahat and Harun have been allowed by this Court after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant and case of applicant is at par with them.

14. 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."

15. In view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), it appears that all the accused persons should be treated equally and bail application of an accused can be considered on the ground of parity itself.

16. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having previous criminal history of three other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant second bail application and it reflects, all the cases relate to minor offences and in all these cases, applicant is on bail.

17. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since

18.04.2022 i.e. for last more than three years.

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

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

20. Let the applicant- Nazim, 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 :- 25.7.2025 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 on merit by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the grounds that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant when informant, injured of the case namely Harun and one another witness Zaki appeared before the trial court then they did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile and after considering this fact, co- accused Rahat and Harun have been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.07.2025 and 09.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.26302 of 2024 and 23421 of 2023, respectively.

4. He further submits that as far as allegation levelled against applicant is concerned, case of applicant is also exactly at par with co-accused Rahat and Harun, who have already been released on bail.

5. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having previous criminal history of three other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant second bail application and all the cases relate to minor offences and in all these cases, applicant is on bail.

6. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 18.04.2022 i.e. for last more than three years.

7. 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 after considering the entire facts in detail but could not dispute the fact that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant when informant, injured of the case namely Harun and one another witness Zaki appeared before the trial court then they did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile.

8. He further could not dispute the fact that after considering the above facts, co-accused Rahat and Harun have been released on bail by this Court and case of applicant is at par with them.

9. He however, further submits that apart from the present case, applicant is having previous criminal history of three other cases but could not dispute the fact that all the cases relate to minor offences and in all these cases, applicant is on bail.

10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 18.04.2022 i.e. for last more than three years.

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

12. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court after considering the merit of the case but it reflects, after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant when informant, injured of the case namely Harun and one another witness Zaki appeared before the trial court then they did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile.

13. Further, after considering the above facts, bail applications of co-accused Rahat and Harun have been allowed by this Court after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant and case of applicant is at par with them.

14. 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."

15. In view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), it appears that all the accused persons should be treated equally and bail application of an accused can be considered on the ground of parity itself.

16. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having previous criminal history of three other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant second bail application and it reflects, all the cases relate to minor offences and in all these cases, applicant is on bail.

17. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since

18.04.2022 i.e. for last more than three years.

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

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

20. Let the applicant- Nazim, 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 :- 25.7.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad