Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46280 of 2020 Applicant :- Salman @ Anna Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Puneet Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This is second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Salman@Anna, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 139 of 2019, under Sections 386 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Chauk, District Varanasi.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.1.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3034 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that he has disclosed 11 criminal cases pending against him in para-9 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and the applicant has been granted bail in all the said cases. It is further argued that identically placed co-accused Sheru Khan has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.8.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19270 of 2020, copy of which is annexure no. 5 to the affidavit. Learned counsel has placed annexure no. 4 to the affidavit before the Court which is the order sheet of the trial court from 03.1.2020 to 28.10.2020 and has argued that trial in the present case is not proceedings for no fault of the applicant and he is in jail since 16.9.2019. It is argued that as such he deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that except for the fact regarding delay in trial and the bail granted to the co-accused, there is no new and fresh ground pleaded and argued before this Court. It is argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court considering the criminal history of the applicant which is of 11 cases apart from the present case. It is argued that as such release of the applicant at this stage will have an adverse effect in the trial and hence, the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant has criminal history of 11 cases. The order granting bail to the co-accused by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court has been pressed before this Court. Parity has a persuasive value only but is not binding upon the Court. The bail application thus deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the trial of the applicant be expedited.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others : (2002) 1 SCC 655, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab : (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and another Vs. Union of India : (2017) 5 SCC 702, subject to any legal impediment, and, further subject to the fact that the working of the trial court is not disturbed of the modalities of working of court due to pandemic Covid-19, the abstinence of work by lawyers and leave of the Presiding Officer.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.)