India. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.103 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 323, 302, 504, 506, 325, 307 IPC, Police Station Barsathi, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 02.05.2024 against applicant and ten others and according to the FIR, on 02.05.2024 at 7 a.m. in the morning applicant and other accused persons, who were having wooden sticks and iron rods, made assault and due to the assault made by them, the husband and devor of the informant died and number of persons sustained injuries.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that from the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, it reflects only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including applicant.

6. He further submits that however, as per prosecution, in the incident two persons died and nine persons sustained injuries but out of nine persons, four persons did not sustain any injury and they only made complaint of pain.

7. He further submits that all the witnesses including injured witnesses also attributed only general role to all the accused.

8. He further submits that considering the fact that applicant is lady and she has been made accused in the present matter alongwith as many as ten persons, it reflects, it is a case of over implication and being lady there was absolutely no occasion for the applicant to participate in the alleged crime.

9. He further submits that co-accused Maonj Kumar Yadav was also named in the FIR as an accused alongwith applicant and with a detailed order, he has been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37881 of 2024. He further submits, however, while granting bail to co-accused Maonj Kumar Yadav, Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in para 13 observed that the case of co-accused Maonj Kumar Yadav is distinguishable from the case of other accused persons but considering the facts of the case, it appears, case of applicant is not only exactly at par with him but also as she is a lady, therefore, her case is even on better footing than him.

10. He further submits that however, earlier also applicant was made accused in one another case but in that case, after investigation final report has been submitted.

11. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 02.05.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that it is a case of double murder in which nine persons also sustained injuries and applicant is also named in the FIR but they could not dispute the fact that on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, applicant has been made accused alongwith ten others.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Maonj Kumar Yadav was also named in the FIR and he has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 and on facts, case of applicant is at par with him. However, they further submit that while granting bail to co- accused Maonj Kumar Yadav, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that his case is distinguishable from the case of other accused persons.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 02.05.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

15. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

16. However, it is a case of double murder and in the alleged incident nine persons also sustained injuries but it reflects, only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused including applicant and considering this fact and the fact that in the FIR alongwith applicant as many as ten persons were made accused, the argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that it appears to be a case of over implication, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, record also suggests that alongwith applicant co- accused Manoj Kumar Yadav was also named in the FIR and similar allegations have been made against him and he has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 with a detailed and reasoned order.

18. Record however, further suggests that while granting bail to co-accused Maonj Kumar Yadav, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para 13 observed that his case is distinguishable from the case of other accused persons but on facts, it appears, case of all the accused including applicant and co-accused Manoj Kumar Yadav are similar.

19. Further, law is settled, all the accused persons should be treated equally and while disposing the bail application, Court should consider the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 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."

20. Further, applicant is a lady and she is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 02.05.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

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- Jyoti Devi 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 her 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 :- 4.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.103 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 323, 302, 504, 506, 325, 307 IPC, Police Station Barsathi, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 02.05.2024 against applicant and ten others and according to the FIR, on 02.05.2024 at 7 a.m. in the morning applicant and other accused persons, who were having wooden sticks and iron rods, made assault and due to the assault made by them, the husband and devor of the informant died and number of persons sustained injuries.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that from the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, it reflects only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including applicant.

6. He further submits that however, as per prosecution, in the incident two persons died and nine persons sustained injuries but out of nine persons, four persons did not sustain any injury and they only made complaint of pain.

7. He further submits that all the witnesses including injured witnesses also attributed only general role to all the accused.

8. He further submits that considering the fact that applicant is lady and she has been made accused in the present matter alongwith as many as ten persons, it reflects, it is a case of over implication and being lady there was absolutely no occasion for the applicant to participate in the alleged crime.

9. He further submits that co-accused Maonj Kumar Yadav was also named in the FIR as an accused alongwith applicant and with a detailed order, he has been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37881 of 2024. He further submits, however, while granting bail to co-accused Maonj Kumar Yadav, Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in para 13 observed that the case of co-accused Maonj Kumar Yadav is distinguishable from the case of other accused persons but considering the facts of the case, it appears, case of applicant is not only exactly at par with him but also as she is a lady, therefore, her case is even on better footing than him.

10. He further submits that however, earlier also applicant was made accused in one another case but in that case, after investigation final report has been submitted.

11. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 02.05.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that it is a case of double murder in which nine persons also sustained injuries and applicant is also named in the FIR but they could not dispute the fact that on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, applicant has been made accused alongwith ten others.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Maonj Kumar Yadav was also named in the FIR and he has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 and on facts, case of applicant is at par with him. However, they further submit that while granting bail to co- accused Maonj Kumar Yadav, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that his case is distinguishable from the case of other accused persons.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 02.05.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

15. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

16. However, it is a case of double murder and in the alleged incident nine persons also sustained injuries but it reflects, only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused including applicant and considering this fact and the fact that in the FIR alongwith applicant as many as ten persons were made accused, the argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that it appears to be a case of over implication, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, record also suggests that alongwith applicant co- accused Manoj Kumar Yadav was also named in the FIR and similar allegations have been made against him and he has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 with a detailed and reasoned order.

18. Record however, further suggests that while granting bail to co-accused Maonj Kumar Yadav, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para 13 observed that his case is distinguishable from the case of other accused persons but on facts, it appears, case of all the accused including applicant and co-accused Manoj Kumar Yadav are similar.

19. Further, law is settled, all the accused persons should be treated equally and while disposing the bail application, Court should consider the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 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."

20. Further, applicant is a lady and she is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 02.05.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

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- Jyoti Devi 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 her 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 :- 4.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad