Ram Singh vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 447

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
Ram Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 52424 of 2022
Decided on : 23-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Upendra Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: Shri Rabindra Kumar Singh, Shri Shekhar Gangal

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 14 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504, 506, 302, 304, 354 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439, 161, 164 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 –Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Learned counsel applicant Additional Government Advocate a appearing on behalf of learned counsel for first informant – Held, Court find that case of present applicant is distinguishable from case of other co-accused persons because there was no allegation against them with regard to outraging modesty of minor victim which has only been assigned to present applicant further incident outcome of act committed by applicant – Considering overall case as well as keeping submissions advanced on behalf of parties gravity of offence role assigned to applicant nature of injuries and severity of punishment – Application is rejected.

ORDER :

Index

Contents

Facts of the case

Submissions on behalf of accused-applicant

Submissions on behalf of State and informant

Settled principles for considering bail prayer

Factual analysis of case

Discussion about issue of parity

Analysis about Article 14 of the Constitution

Conclusion

Result

1. Heard Shri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Shamsher Singh, learned counsel, who is appearing on behalf of Mr. Shekhar Gangal, learned counsel for the first informant.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Ram Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 332 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504, 506, 304, 354(Ka) IPC and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

Facts of the case

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, informant who is brother-in-law (Jeeja)of the victim, lodged a first information report on 30.08.2021 against Gulab Singh, Ram Singh (present applicant), Lekhraj, Vimlesh and Shanti Devi alleging inter-aliathat on 27.08.2021, his sister-in-law (Saali) aged about 15 years was sleeping alone at the roof of her house. At about 10:00 in the night, the present applicant Ram Singh, who is her neighbour, sneaked into her house and with an intention to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her. On raising alarm by the victim, her mother Pushpa Devi and father Jai Narayan woke up and when they rushed at the roof, applicant Ram Singh succeeded in fleeing away. Since it was late night, therefore, victim’s father did not go to the police station to lodge FIR. On the next day i.e. 28.08.2021 when Jai Narayan was going to lodge FIR along with victim, at that time, the accused persons namely Gulab Singh, Ram Singh (present applicant), Lekhraj, Vimlesh and Shanti Devi armed with lathi,danda,farsa and iron rod barged into his house and started mounting pressure upon them for compromise. When Jai Narayan refused for the same, they started beating him. The FIR further alleges that when his wife Pushpa Devi and victim tried to intervene, they were also belaboured by them. Thereafter the accused persons ran away giving threat to them. The people of the locality collected there gave information about the said incident to the police by dialling 112, on which the police reached the spot and took Jai Narayan to Deen Dayal Hospital. Considering his condition as serious, he was referred to Medical Hospital, but since, there was no facility of ventilator at Medical Hospital, he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, where he succumbed to the injuries.

Submissions on behalf of the applicant.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant. It is also submitted that co-accused Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Vimlesh have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54440 of 2021 and thereafter other co-accused persons namely Gulab Singh and Lekhraj have been granted bail vide order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25969 of 2022 only on the ground of parity of bail order of Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Vimlesh, as noted above, therefore, the applicant on the Principle of parity is also entitled to be released on bail. It is argued that if the applicant is not granted bail on the ground of parity, it would be violative of his fundamental right. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 22.09.2021.

Submissions on behalf of the State

5. Per contra, Shri Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Gove