Point of Law: Word ‘parity’ means the state or condition being equal or on a level; equality; equality of rank or status.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri P.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Kiran Singh, learned A.G.A.

2. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected on 18.3.2021 by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J. vide Bail No. 3356 of 2021.

3. In view of the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 13.11.2018, if the Hon'ble Court, which has rejected the bail application of an accused, is not sitting at the place where subsequent bail application has been filed, the same shall be put up before the regular Court, therefore, this bail application has been put up before the regular Court. It has been noted that the Hon'ble Court, which has rejected the first bail application, is presently not sitting at Lucknow where this second bail application has been filed.

4. As per Sri Gupta, the present applicant, who is a lady, is in jail since 24.11.2020 in Case Crime No. 0206 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 302/34, 336 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Asoha, District-Unnao.

5. Sri Gupta has submitted that he is conscious about the fact that he cannot raise any arguments or take any ground in the second bail application, which could have been taken in the first bail application, therefore, he shall not be repeating any arguments or grounds, which have already been considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the present applicant on 18.3.2021.

6. Sri Gupta has submitted that he shall be pressing this second bail application on the solitary ground that after rejection of bail application of the present applicant on 18.3.2021, this Court granted bail to co-accused Bahadur in Bail No. 7523 of 2021 on 5.10.2021. Further, other co-accused persons, namely, Bablu has been granted bail in Bail No. 5287 of 2021 on 9.11.2021; Kamal has been granted bail in Bail No. 12888 of 2021 on 22.11.2021 and Deepu has been granted bail in Bail No. 8149 of 2021 on 7.12.2021 as orders of those accused persons have been shown to the Court, which are taken on record.

7. Sri Gupta has drawn attention of this Court towards the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P. 1993 Cri. L.J. 938, wherein the question was considered as to whether any accused may be entitled for bail in his/her subsequent bail application, if after rejection of his/her bail, the other co-accused persons have been granted bail. In para-1 of the judgment, the aforesaid question has been indicated, which reads as under:

1. In the third bail application moved by the petitioner for bail in case Crime No. 53 of 1989 under Section 302, IPC of P.S. Ganj, district Rampur Hon'ble N.L. Ganguli, J. has referred the following question to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement:

“Whether an accused is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity by moving a second or third bail application in a circumstance that at a later date a co-accused of the same criminal case with a similar role was granted bail by the another Hon'ble Judge before whom without disclosing the fact that the bail application of another co-accused with similar role had already been rejected, by another Bench, bail was granted.”

8. While replying the aforesaid question, the Devision Bench of this Court in Nanha (supra) has observed in paragraphs 53 and 58 as under:

“53. There are large number of cases of this Court in which the question of parity in the matters of bail has been considered earlier and the weight of judicial authority is in favour of the principle of parity being followed. In the case of Hadi vs. State, 1986 Allahabad Criminal Cases 390 Hon'ble Parmeshwari Dayal, J. bailed out the accused on the ground that coaccused had been bailed out earlier. In another case of Sanwal Das Gupta vs. State of U.P. 1986 Allahabad Criminal Cases 79, D.N. Jha, J. observed that where bail was granted to a co-accused then even the Magistrate can admit co-accused to maintain parity. In the case of Ram Roop vs. State of U.P. 1987