Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that co-accused Mahboob has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, copy of which has been produced and the same is taken on record. He further submits that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that the applicant is in jail since 18.5.15.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, he does not dispute the fact that the similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail by this Court.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A. G. A. and the fact that identically placed co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
In view of the above, let the applicant Nanha Alias Sukha Alias Sabir be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 159 of 2015, under Section 364 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Bareilly.
Order Date :- 21.4.2016 Anand