SHOBHA RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second bail application moved by Applicant Shobha Ram in a case under Ss. 302/ 307/ 452, I.P.C. The first bail application which was moved by the present applicant and one Kishan Pal was rejected by me on merits on 11-3-1991.

(2.) The present bail application has been moved on the ground that after the rejection of first bail application moved by the applicant, bail has been granted to co-accused Chandra Pal by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. L. Ganguli on 20-7-1991. It is argued that the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused Chandra Pal and on the ground of parity, the applicant should also be granted bail.

(3.) On behalf of the complainant as well as the State, it has been asserted that after the rejection of the first bail application moved by the present applicant, one application by another co-accused was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. K. Chaubey and this fact was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. L. Ganguli when the bail application of co-accused Chandra Pal was allowed. It is contended that in such circumstances, the ground of parity will not be available to the present applicant. On behalf of the State and the complainant, however, it has not been denied that the case of the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused Chandra Pal who has been granted bail. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there was no obligation on the part of co-accused Chandra Pal or his counsel to state before the Court about the fact that the bail application of other-co-accused has been rejected. It is contended that the bail application of co-accused was considered on merits and was allowed on its merit. The first bail application could not have been rejected merely on the ground that the bail application of other co-accused earlier had been rejected. Thus according to the learned counsel there could not be any parity in respect of rejection of bail applications though the applicant can claim parity on the ground that the bail application of co-accused, whose case is similar to that of the present applicant, has been allowed.