SABIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri D. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. K. Jain, learned Additional Govern ment Advocate. .

(2.) THIS second bail application on behalf of the applicant is being pressed on ground that co-accused Laiq assigned the similar role has been granted bail by Hon'ble M. L. Singhal, J. vide order dated 19-11 -98. It is further submitted that it is a case of under Section 396, IPC. The ac cused had enmity with the complainant side and no precaution to conceal identity was taken which is not natural. Learned Additional Government Advocate sub mits that both these grounds were con sidered while rejecting the first bail ap plication. It is further submitted that before Hon'ble M. L. Singhal, J. it appears that correct facts were not placed. Laiq co-accused was granted bail on ground of his case being identical to co- accused Nawab, Nanhu, Rafiq, Liyakat, Nazir, Naseer Ahmad and Races whereas in fact the case of co- accused Laiq was not identi cal to those accused who were granted bail earlier.

(3.) IN view of the above facts and cir cumstances, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. His bail application is therefore, rejected. Application dismissed. .