Back
2014 Supreme(Raj) 632
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaipur Bench
Sandeep @ Sahvag Vs. State of Rajasthan (Agarwal, J.)
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL, J.
Sandeep Alias Sahvag
Versus
State of Rajasthan
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12873 of 2014, decided on 25.11.2014
Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, for Petitioner-Sandeep in Bail Appl. No. 12873/14;
Ashvin Garg, for Petitioner-Malkhan Singh in Bail Appl. No. 12572/14;
Pankaj Gupta, for Petitioner-Maduram in Bail Appl. No. 1300714;
Rajendra Raghav, Public Prosecutor, for State;
Vijay Yadav, for Complainant
Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 439; Penal Code, Sec. 147 and 302 — Grant of bail on the ground of parity and judicial discipline as co-accused was granted the benefit of bail — Petitioners are of criminal background — While granting benefit of bail to co-accused, important and relevant facts were not taken into consideration — Held — In bail matters no principle of law is laid down, therefore, the principle of judicial discipline and to maintain judicial propriety and decorum is not applicable in bail matters, it applies only where some principle of law is laid down by a Single/Division Bench of the High Court — In view of the material on record, gravity of the offence and the role attributed to each of the petitioner in the incident, the benefit of bail cannot be granted. (Paras 11, 23 to 25, 29)
Bail applications dismissed.
na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 439( n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 147 o 302 & lekurk vkSj U;kf;d vuq'kklu ds vk/kkj ij tekur eatwj djuk D;ksafd lg vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tk pqdk Fkk & izkFkhZx.k vkijkf/kd i`"BHkwfe okys gS & lg vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ifjykHk nsrs le; egRoiw.kZ o lqlaxr rF;ksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & tekur lEcU/kh ekeyks esa fof/k dk dksbZ fl)kUr vf/kdfFkr ugha fd;k tkrk gS( vr% U;kf;dvuq'kklu dk fl)kUr vkSj U;kf;d 'kq)rk vkSj e;kZnk cuk;s j[kus dk fl)kUr ykxw ugha gksrk & ;g dsoy ogh ykxw gksrk gS tgka mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dy@[k.MihB }kjk fof/k dk dksbZ fl)kUr vf/kdfFkr fd;k tkrk gS & vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh dh n`f"V ls] vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk vkSj ?kVuk esa izR;sd izkFkhZ dks lwfpr Hkwfedk dh n`f"V ls tekur dk ifjykHk ugha fn;k tk ldrkA
tekur vkosnu [kkfjt fd;kA ¼in la[;k 11] 23 ls 25] 29½
2. The allegation against the petitioners and co-accused is that they entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause death of deceased Shri Ramesh Chandra and in pursuance of that conspiracy, co-accused Rakesh Gurjar and Madu Ram entered into this his house and inflicted several injuries to the deceased as a result of which he died while taken to hospital. It is to be noted that after investigation charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioners and the co-accused for the offences under Sections 147, 452, 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.
3. The bail application filed by accused-petitioner Shri Madu Ram has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 16.11.2014, that of accused-petitioner-Shri Sandeep alias Sahvag vide order dated 9.9.2014 and that of accused-petitioner Shri Malkhan Singh has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 8.10.2014. It is also to be noted that benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been granted to co-accused Shri Subhash by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.10.2014. As all these bail applications arise out of the same FIR and incident, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
4. First of all it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that benefit of bail has already been granted to co-accused Shri Subhash by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 1.10.2014 after taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence collected during investigation which was placed before the Co-ordinate Bench by way of copy of the charge-sheet and more particularly the role attributed to the co-accused Shri Subhash in the incident and, therefore, the present petitioners are also entitled to get the same benefit of bail on the ground of parity as their case is also on the same footing as that of the co-accused Shri Subhash to whom benefit of bail has already been granted. It was further submitted that like co-accused-Shri Subhash, the role attributed to petitioners Shri Sandeep alias Sahvag and Shri Malkhan Singh at the most is that they were also waiting for the co-accused with motorcycles outside the house of the deceased and it is not even the case of the prosecution that they entered into the house and inflicted injuries to the deceased. It was also submitted that judicial discipline requires that if a Single Bench of the High Court has taken a view in a case, the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court must follow the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench if the cases are based on similar factual footing and if by any reason the subsequent Co-ordinate Bench decides not to follow the view taken by the previous Co-ordinate Bench, the case must be referred to a Larger Bench, but the subsequent Co-ordinate Bench should not take a contrary view. In the present case as the Co-ordinate Bench after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the co-accused Shri Subhash was pleased to grant benefit of bail to him, the same treatment should be given to the present petitioners also.
5. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the cases of U.P.Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & Ors. vs. Daya Ram Saroj & Ors. reported in (2007) 2 SCC 138, Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Ors. reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1, Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2010) 15 SCC 529 and Yunis & Anr. vs. State of U.P. 1999 Crl. L.J. 4094 (Allahabad High Court).
6. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the present case benefit of bail ca
