RAJ BAHADUR Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.C. No. 3141/2014

(2.) THE Petitioner is a Police Official. He has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. impugning the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi on 10.07.2014 on appeal filed by the State cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner on 18.06.2014 by the trial court. An FIR No. 130/2014 was registered at Police Station, Kamla Market under Section 419/420/365/392/412/120 -B IPC on the complaint of one Rishi Chander Yadav on 22.04.2014. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, the Petitioner was arrested. Thereafter on 18.06.2014 bail was granted to the Petitioner by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Later, on the basis of this bail, Vasudev Prasad, a co -accused, was also granted bail on 01.07.2014. The State then moved for cancellation of the Petitioner's bail on 05.07.2014. On 09.07.2014, the Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has come before this Court.

(3.) I do not agree. Counsel has taken a rather simplistic view of the matter. I find that he is choosing to treat the conclusion of the court below that Vasudev Prasad was being granted bail, "on the ground of parity", as an absolute certificate accorded by that court that both the petitioner, as well as Vasudev Prasad, were identically situated, i.e., their role and surrounding circumstances, were identical. However, even the slightest examination would show that this is not so. A glaring difference is that unlike the co -accused, Vasudev Prasad, the petitioner happens to be a police official, who has allegedly also misused his official position; and for this reason, it cannot be presumed that the two were identically situated merely because the court below has used the aforesaid expression whilst considering the case of the co -accused, Vasudev Prasad, vis -a -vis bail already having been granted to the petitioner. It cannot be deemed to have changed the relevant factual circumstances; and the points of difference between the position of the petitioner and that of Vasudev, Prasad. Perhaps what the trial court intended was that since the petitioner had already been granted bail, then, keeping in mind the fact that the allegations against the petitioner were obviously more severe since they demonstrated a police official's involvement in the crime; and that too by misusing his official position, the grant of bail to such a person would naturally entitle the co -accused, Vasudev Prasad, also to bail because not only was the latter accused of similar offences, but there was no issue of misuse of his official position in his conduct. Under the circumstances, the mere fact that Vasudev Prasad was granted bail because the petitioner, Raj Bahadur, had been granted bail earlier, cannot mean that whilst considering the question of cancellation of Raj Bahadur's bail, the fact that Vasudev Prasad is on bail, entitles Raj Bahadur to continue on bail.