(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the applicant and the Government Advocate. Perused the records.
(2.) THIS is an application for bail by the applicant Amin Khan, being the accused No. 1, and who has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of I. P. C. , along with one more accused being the accused No. 11, hereinafter called as "the appellant No. 2", in the Sessions Case No. 41/97 and 71/99 wherein nine other persons were also prosecuted.
(3.) THE case of the applicant is that the applicant along with others was booked for the offences allegedly committed by him and others punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 read with 34 of I. P. C. in respect of Crime No. 102/97 registered with the Police Station at Nandura. According to the applicant the above said registration of the crime was on account of two incidents dated 1-6-1997 and 31-5-1997 and they were pertaining to the dispute about the management of Mohalla Mosque. It is further the case of the applicant that the members of both the groups were released on bail and they remained on bail during the trial before the Sessions Court and it is only after the conviction, the applicant has been sent to jail in pursuance of the judgment by the learned Sessions Judge. It is further the case of the applicant that he is entitled for bail on the ground of parity inasmuch as the circumstances in which the alleged offence is said to have been committed by the applicant as well as by the appellant No. 2 being similar in nature and the appellant No. 2 having been released on bail, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. While justifying the case of the applicant for bail, the learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance in the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in (Uthaman and others v. State of Kerala) reported in 1983 Cri. L. J. 74, and contended that mere conviction by the Sessions Court would not lead to presumption that the accused in fact has committed the alleged offence; the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Bhagwan Rama Shinde v. State of Gujarat) reported in 1999 Cri. L. J. 2568, has been relied upon while contending that when there is no possibility of hearing the appeal expeditiously, the applicant should be directed to be released on bail and thirdly in decision of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of (Nanha v. State of U. P.) reported in 1993 Cri. L. J. 938, while submitting that when co-accused are allowed to be released on bail, the applicant is also entitled to bail on parity.