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

2. At the very outset, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that name of the applicant is 'Vikal Yadav' but due to the mistake in the memo of the bail application his name has been mentioned as 'Vikalp Yadav' and therefore, he may be permitted to make necessary correction in the name of the applicant in memo of instant bail application.

3. Learned A.G.A. is having no objection.

4. In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the name of the applicant in the memo of instant bail application.

5. Heard Sri Snil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State-respondent.

6. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.459 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(2), 340(2), 61(2) BNS and Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been roped in the present matter along with as many as 16 others and as per allegation from the possession of applicant and other accused persons fake mark sheets were recovered but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

8. He further submits that along with applicant co-accused Abhishek Chaudhary, Kasim, Asif, Sumit Chaudhary and Sakib were also made accused but all the above accused persons have been released on bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court and their bail orders have been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application. He next submits that on facts case of applicant is at par with them.

9. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 01.10.2024, i.e. for the last more than nine months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that similarly placed number of other co-accused persons have been released on bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court.

11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and he is in jail since October, 2024, i.e., for the last more than nine months.

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

13. However, as per allegation from the possession of the applicant fake mark sheets were recovered but it reflects that along with the applicant as many as 16 others were also made accused including co-accused Abhishek Chaudhary, Kasim, Asif, Sumit Chaudhary and Sakib and from their possession also allegedly fake mark sheets were recovered but all the above co-accused have already been released on bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court and on facts 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. Considering the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) on the ground of parity applicant should be released on bail.

16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 01.10.2024, i..e, for the last more than nine months.

17. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

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

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

20. Let the applicant- Vikal 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.

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 :- 21.7.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. At the very outset, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that name of the applicant is 'Vikal Yadav' but due to the mistake in the memo of the bail application his name has been mentioned as 'Vikalp Yadav' and therefore, he may be permitted to make necessary correction in the name of the applicant in memo of instant bail application.

3. Learned A.G.A. is having no objection.

4. In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the name of the applicant in the memo of instant bail application.

5. Heard Sri Snil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State-respondent.

6. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.459 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(2), 340(2), 61(2) BNS and Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been roped in the present matter along with as many as 16 others and as per allegation from the possession of applicant and other accused persons fake mark sheets were recovered but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

8. He further submits that along with applicant co-accused Abhishek Chaudhary, Kasim, Asif, Sumit Chaudhary and Sakib were also made accused but all the above accused persons have been released on bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court and their bail orders have been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application. He next submits that on facts case of applicant is at par with them.

9. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 01.10.2024, i.e. for the last more than nine months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that similarly placed number of other co-accused persons have been released on bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court.

11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and he is in jail since October, 2024, i.e., for the last more than nine months.

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

13. However, as per allegation from the possession of the applicant fake mark sheets were recovered but it reflects that along with the applicant as many as 16 others were also made accused including co-accused Abhishek Chaudhary, Kasim, Asif, Sumit Chaudhary and Sakib and from their possession also allegedly fake mark sheets were recovered but all the above co-accused have already been released on bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court and on facts 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. Considering the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) on the ground of parity applicant should be released on bail.

16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 01.10.2024, i..e, for the last more than nine months.

17. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

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

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

20. Let the applicant- Vikal 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.

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 :- 21.7.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad