Court No. - 19
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13025 of 2021 Applicant :- Surendra @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Singh,Surya Bhan Singh,Yadvendra Krishan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Shri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri. Surya Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Akhilesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the second bail application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.813 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that that the judgment in the first bail application was reserved on 2.2.2021 and it was delivered on 5.2.2021. During this period, two co-accused were granted bail vide orders dated 2.2.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6135 of 2021, Rajdeep Vs. State of U.P. and dated 3.2.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6493 of 2021, Raj Narayan Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. He further submitted that the other co-accused was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8.2.2021 passed by this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6424 of 2021, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. He further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.12.2020, and the trial is not proceeding. He lastly submitted that the applicant has a case of bail on merit also. There is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the first bail application was rejected by a reasoned order. The bail orders of the co-accused are bereft of any reasoning, therefore, no case of parity is made out and the applicant is not entitled for bail. He has relied on paragraph 7 of the first bail application which is reproduced below:
"7. Considering the rival submissions, material available on record and particularly the facts that applicant is indulged in offence of making forged Aadhar Cards; he was apprehended alongwith other co-accused and incriminating articles were recovered from their possession, which indicate that applicant is part of a group alongwith other co-accused, who indulged in making forged appointment letters and further preparing forged Aadhar Card is prima facie for the purpose of facilitating co- accused to prepare forged appointment letters, which is a serious offence; this Court is of the view that no case for bail is made out. "
5. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the bail orders granted to the co-accused. The relevant portion of the bail orders, details of which are mentioned above are reproduced hereinafter:
(i). " Learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon the perusal of the record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed."
(ii). " Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, nature of offence, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Rajdeep involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions."
(iii). " Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail, but does not dispute the factual aspects of the matter.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, enlargement of co-accused on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant Rahul involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions."
6. The abovementioned orders are not accompanied by reasons and it appears that learned A.G.A. has not placed the entire facts of the case before the co-ordinate benches that it was a case of forged Aadhar Cards as well as forged appointment letters of the post of Ticket Collector. This Court has expressed displeasure on the standard of assistance rendered by State Counsel in order dated 4.8.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26289 of 2020, Soib Vs. State of U.P.
7. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2021, Harjit Singh Vs. Inderpreet Singh @ Inder & Anr, decided on 24.8.2021, 2021, SCC Online SC 633, has followed the judgment passed in Ramesh Bhawan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hira Bhai Makwana (koli) 2021 (6) SCALE 41, 2021 SCC Online SC 353 that "Grant of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice." However, the abovementioned orders whereby the bail were granted to the co-accused if tested with the yardstick of above referred judgment of the Apex Court would miserably fail.
8. It is settled law that parity alone is not a ground for granting bail. It is also relevant to note here that the first bail application was rejected on 5.2.2021 and the present bail application was filed on 13.2.2021 i.e. within a period of 7 days and that in case of conviction, sentence could be awarded upto 10 years and even upto life, therefore, even the ground of prolong detention is also not available to the applicant, therefore, this second bail application sans merit and it is accordingly rejected.
9. It is expected by the learned trial court that the trial will be expedited and while granting any adjournment, provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. will be taken care of.
Order Date:-28.10.2021 SB