Kundan Singh - (1.) THIS is an application for bail on behalf of applicant Satyendra Singh in case Crime No. 219 of 1994, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 504. I.P.C. of police station Haldharpur, district Mau.
(2.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Singh and Sri B. N. Singh for the applicant, Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar for the complainant and the A.G.A. for the state and also perused the relevant papers available on record. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted written arguments later on. According to the F.I.R. version, the incident took place at about 8.00 a.m. on 4.10.1994 in front of the house of the informant Bhola Singh in village abadi of Kanso in which four accused caused firearm injuries on the bodies of four persons. Out of them, two died on the spot, one in the way to hospital and the fourth one sustained gunshot injuries. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the father of the deceased persons at 9.15 a.m. on the same day, i.e., 4.10.1994 at police station Haldharpur, district Mau at a distance of 12 kilometres from the place of incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed bail to the applicant on the ground of parity inasmuch as accused Kamla Singh and Ram Asrey Singh have already been enlarged on bail by Honble G.S.N. Tripathi, J. vide his orders dated 26.2.1996 and 10.5.1996, respectively, though co-accused Bijendra Singh, who was also assigned similar role in the F.I.R., has been refused bail by Hon'ble S. K. Varma, J. on 22.3.1996. When the fact of rejection of the bail application of co-accused Bijendra Singh was brought to the notice of the Court, the learned counsel for the applicant retorted that the principle of parity applies only to the grant of bail but not to refuse it.
(3.) AS two learned single Judges of this Court have taken divergent views in the matter of grant and refusal of the facility of bail to three other similarly situate accused in the same case and the role assigned to the fourth accused Satyendra Singh, the applicant herein, is also identical I felt necessity of going through the entire record and the respective orders passed by my esteemed brothers. For proper appreciation of the controversy raised in the present bail application, the orders passed by both the learned Judges are quoted below chronologically : Honble G. S. N. Tripathi, J. : "After hearing Sri J. S. Sengar, the application is allowed. Let applicant Kamla Singh involved in case Crime No. 219 of 1994 under Sections 147. 148. 149, 307, 302 and 504, I.P.C., P.S. Haldharpur. district Mau be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Mau." Dated : 26.2.1996 Sd./ G. S. N. Tripathi. Hon'ble S.K.Verma, J. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Three sons of the complainant were murdered as per the first information report on 4.10.1994 at about 8.00 a.m. The report was lodged at 9.15 a.m. in police station Haldharpur, district Mau. There is an injured eyewitness also, namely Ganga Singh whose presence cannot be doubted. The applicant was armed with a fire-arm and there are gunshot wounds on the persons of the three victims. Parity has been claimed because one of the accused, namely Kamla Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.2.1996 in bail application No. 2134 of 1996. Ordinarily, enlargement of co-accused on bail would be a sufficient ground for not denying similar concession to other co-accused provided that the nature of accusation and availability of evidence is also similar and in the matter of other considerations, such as age, likelihood of the accused facing the trial etc., also the cases are similar. Otherwise it cannot be followed as a matter of rule that the enlargement of co-accused on bail should implicitly bind the Court in enlarging other co-accused on bail. Distinguishing features may entail distinct results. State v. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 ; Kalyan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1989 CrLJ 512. The bail order in respect of co-accused Kamla Singh does not disclose any reason on the basis of which bail was granted to him. There may be several reasons on the basis of which bail may be granted to an accused and may be refused to another accused of the same case such as illness, old-age, infirmity, physical invalidity, mental condition, sex and criminal history of the particular accused. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find it a fit case for bail so far as the applicant is concerned. Dated : March 22, 1996 Sd./- S. K. Verma. Hon'ble G. S. N. Tripathi, J. : "Co-accused Kamla Singh similarly placed has been bailed out. Let applicant Ram ASrey Singh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Mau in case Crime No. 219 of 1994 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 504,1.P.C., P.S. Haldharpur, district Mau." Dated : 10.5.1996 Sd./- G. S. N. Tripathi. On a bare reading of the orders of brother Tripathi, J. it would be evident that he has not given reason in either of the two orders while granting bail to the two similarly situate co-accused. Of course, the Court is not required to record reasons for granting the facility of bail to the accused. But since in the present case crime, there are two conflicting orders of granting and refusing bail to the similarly placed co-accused, I felt necessity of making mention of the absence of reasons in the orders of brother Tripathi, J. to indicate that it is not clear from his orders as to what weighed with him for granting ball to the similarly placed co-accused Kamla Singh and Ram Asrey Singh.;