NEERAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri R.D. Dauholia, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State on the prayer of bail of the appellant Neeraj convicted by Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Bulandshahar in S.T. No. 20/2004 connected with S.T. No 90/2004 and S.T. No. 980/2005. State Vs. Pankaj Sharma and others, under Sec. 302, 201, 120B Indian Penal Code, P.S. Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the co-accused Pankaj, Ajay and Sanjay have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 2.12.2008. There are similar allegations against the appellant Neeraj also and on the ground of parity, he is also entitled for bail. Learned counsel also argued that there was no evidence against the appellant for convicting him and the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the appellant. It is further argued that this appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the bail.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail. However, it has not been shown that case of the appellant Neeraj is distinct from the co-accused Pankaj, Ajay and Sanjay, who have already been granted bail in bail application No.56258 of 2008.