Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 3rd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20314 of 2019 Applicant :- Karun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh, Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mithlesh Kumar, learned AGA appearing for the State.
This is the third bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.1061 of 2016, under Sections 302 and 102-B, IPC, Police Station Jafarabad, District Jaunpur. The first two bail applications was rejected on 29.07.2016 and 11.10.2018..
Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, has strongly argued with the contention that the co-accused Varun has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.04.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23511 of 2017, copy of the order produced by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record. I have perused the said order. I have also perused the order dated 11.10.2018 by means of which the second bail application of the present applicant has been rejected by this Court, and this Court has observed and given the findings as follows:-
"The second bail application is being pressed on the ground that the co- accused Keshari @ Pappu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2018 and parity has been claimed.
However, the perusal of the order dated 26.7.2018 shows that the co- accused Keshari @ Pappu was granted bail by this Court solely on account of the fact that the wife of the co-accused Keshari @ Pappu (applicant in the said case) was seriously ill and there is no one to look after her and this fact was the prime consideration for grant of bail to co- accused Keshari @ Pappu. Moreover, during the course of argument in the said case, it was also understood that the learned counsel for the applicant will not claim parity of the order granting bail to co-accused Keshari @ Pappu.
Moreover, perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or new ground has been brought on record.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected at this stage."
It goes without saying that the co-accused Keshari @ Pappuu was granted bail by this Court solely on account of the facts that the wife of the co-
accused Keshari @ Pappuu i.e. the applicant in the said case was seriously ill and there was no one to look after her and this facts was the prime consideration for grant of bail to co-accused Keshari @ Pappuu, the order was more by way of mercy than merits.
Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, while arguing the second bail application of the present applicant, had made a statement before this Court that this co-accused may be granted bail only on the ground of mercy.
I have perused the order by means of which the co-accused Varun has been granted bail and when the Court has enquired from him that this order which has been passed solely on the ground of mercy ought not to be utilized for taking the benefit of parity by the other co-accused, Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel has at that time made a statement before this Court that 'since the order has been passed on the ground of mercy, the other co-accused will not claim parity and that he would also not file any other application of any other co-accused, claiming parity.' However, today when the present bail application taken up Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant when confronted with the said statement he had said a lot of unsavoury words before this Court. However, this Court does not deems it fit to bring those words on record, looking to the facts that Sri Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, has spent almost a decade while practising as a lawyer of this Court, and that this Court is a Court of record but his conduct as demonstrated before the Court today is highly deplorable and disgusting. However, the Court does not at this this stage deems fit to add anything further.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of indulgence has been made out by this Court.
Accordingly, the present third bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019/VKG