The principle of parity in bail applications mandates that co-accused in similar circumstances should be treated alike, ensuring consistency in judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT

Krishan Pahal, J.

List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned AGA has stated that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit, so no question of any rejoinder affidavit arises. The matter is being heard on merits.

3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Abhishek Yadav, to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.138 of 2023, Under Sections 147, 323, 336, 308, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Gopiganj, District - Bhadohi, till conclusion of trial.

Prosecution Story:

4. The FIR No. 0138 was lodged at P.S. Gopiganj, Bhadohi on 09.06.2023 at 17:33hrs with the allegations that Ishu Singh and Ritesh Yadav had an altercation in the night of 07.06.2023 which was reported by Ishu Singh at P.S. on 08.06.2023. Peeved by the said reporting, the named accused persons, Luvkush Yadav, Acchelal Yadav, Bamboo Yadav, Manish Yadav, Vijay Bahadur, Yogesh Kr. Yadav, Shiv Kr. Yadav and Some unknown persons came to the house of the informant on 09.06.2023 at about 07:30 am hurled abuses and assaulted the informant Shogendra Singh and Ishu Singh, thereby causing injuries to them.

Rival Contentions:

Arguments on behalf of Applicant:

5. At the very outset, learned counsel Sri. Sandeep Kumar Pandey appearing for the Applicant has claimed parity with the co-accused person, Sharda Prasad Yadav and Ritesh @ Acchelal, who have been granted Anticipatory Bail by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.1), Bhadohi at Gyanpur vide order dated 14.03.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 150 of 2024 on the ground that the applicants therein were earlier on granted Anticipatory Bail till conclusion of investigation and they have not misused it. The Applicant was also granted Anticipatory Bail till conclusion of investigation by the same court vide order dated 03.10.2023 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1077 of 2023, thus he was also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

6. There are general allegations against all the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to any of them including the applicant. The Court concerned has wrongly rejected the Anticipatory Bail application of the applicant despite having granted the Anticipatory Bail to co-accused persons.

7. It is also argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has come up during investigation. The FIR was initially instituted under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 of IPC only and subsequently sections 336, 308 IPC and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act were added against all the accused persons and a final report (charge-sheet) has been filed.

8. It is further argued that the trial court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the applicant without according any reasons to distinguish with its own previous order of allowing the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused persons. The case of applicant was at par with the co-accused (Sharda Prasad Yadav), who like the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and was on a better footing to the other (Ritesh @ Acchelal), who was named in the F.I.R.

9. It is also argued that the name of injured person, Deepu Singh, does not find mentioned in the FIR, thus, the prosecution story itself stands falsified. His medical reports have been procured in collision with the doctor at a private hospital and his radiological examination report does not indicate any bony injury.

10. The case does not fall within the purview of section 308 IPC, that too is punishable to an imprisonment below seven years, thus, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail as he has no criminal antecedents.

11. It is further argued that the true story is that on the alleged day of incident the informant and the injured persons of this case had assaulted the family members of co-accused Manish Yadav