MOHAMMAD ASLAM @ MUNNEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohammad Aslam alias Munney son of Lal Mohammad resident of Basti-ka-pura, Jungideeh, P. S. Bhariya, District Allahabad has moved this third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits on 14-12-1989. The second bail application was also rejected after hearing learned counsel for the parties on 21-5-1990. This third bail application has been moved on the ground of Parity and secondly on some grounds touching the merits of the case, which were said to be new grounds. It appears that on 5-8-1989 the occurrence took place at about 4.00 p. m. when the applicants and some others are said to have fired at the deceased Saghir Ahmad, who fell down and expired.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the first bail application of the co-accused Ansar Ahmad was rejected by Honourable B. L. Yadav, J. on 27-3-1990 on the ground that the bail application of Mohd. Aslam alias Munney was rejected by me and that the case against the present applicant and Ansar Ahmad was almost similar. However, the second bail application of Ansar Ahmad was allowed by Honourable B. K. Yadav, J. on 23-5-1990 on the ground that some new points had been argued. It was, therefore, contended that on the ground of parity of the order of the second bail application of Ansar Ahmad, the present application be allowed. It was further contended that other co-accused have already been admitted to bail and for this reason also the applicant should be admitted to bail. In support of this contention learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following rulings : Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 109 In this case it was held that on the ground of consistency the applicants should also be convicted under Sec. 326, I.P.C. read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. instead of Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. as the other accused has been convicted and sentenced. Sanwal Das Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1986 (23) ACC 79 In this case it was held that if the Sessions Court granted bail to some accused, on the ground of parity, the Magistrate could grant bail to other accused. Ram Roop @ Bhim Sen Vs. State of U.P., 1987 U.P. A. Cr. R. 30 In this case the co-accused had been released on bail and on this ground the second bail application of another accused was allowed.

(3.) I have carefully gone through these rulings and feel that on facts of the instant case, none of these rulings are applicable. Even in Ashok Kumar's case, the Supreme Court has not said that the rule of parity or consistency should be taken as obligatory and must be followed in all cases. Against the above rulings, reference may be made to Said Khan and others Vs. State of U.P., 1990 A. Cr. R. 54 in which reliance was placed in a ruling of this Court in Sita Ram Vs. State, 1981 (18) ACC 182 In this case it was held :