DINESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is third bail application of accused who was ini tially refused bail by order dated 1.10.2007 which is Annexure-A and which should be read as part of this order, because the facts are contained in that order and need not to be repeated.

(2.) HEARD Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.N. Yadav and Sri I.M. Khan, Advocates for the applicant and Sri Mewa Lal Shukla, Special Counsel for the State.

(3.) THE other argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant was that the two other accused (Anil Yadav and Ramesh Chauhan) who are also charged under the Provisions of the 'Act', have been released on bail and, as such, on ground of parity, the applicant also deserves bail. THEre can be no similarity between the two cases be cause the other two accused who, were granted bail, one was driving the Bulldozer and the other was a hired employed. THEy did not have any personal interest in the matter and they were acting only on the direction of the accused-applicant and his father. THEy were not impute with the land lordship mentality. THEir release on bail, cannot be a legitimate ground for re lease, of the present accused-applicant.