Ravindra Singh - (1.) THIS is the second bail application moved by the applicant Ravi Prakash Singh alias Kakkoo with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 507 of 2007 under Section 302/201, I.P.C., Police Station Badlapur, district Jaunpur.
(2.) THE Criminal Miscellaneous First Bail Application No. 2270 of 2008 has been rejected by this Court on 24/1/2008 after considering the merits of the case. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P., Sri Kamal Krishna and Sri S. K. Rao, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution version, the applicant, co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi and co-accused Awadhesh Tripathi blocked the road and stopped the motor cycle of the deceased Shyam Singh, thereafter the applicant, co-accused Amit Kumar Singh alias Rinku Singh and Sunil Kumar Tripathi caused the injuries on his person by using the rod and hockey blows, thereafter he was thrown into the water. Subsequently, he was taken out from the water, by that time, he had died, but the co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi has been released on bail by another Bench of this Court on 22.9.2008 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 28254 of 2007 and co-accused Amit Kumar Singh alias Rinku Singh has also been released on bail by another Bench of this Court on 20.10.2008 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 28441 of 2008, the case of the applicant is based on the same footing with the case of above mentioned co-accused, therefore, he may also be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi has been released on bail by another Bench of this Court on 22.9.2008 on the ground that S.I.S. has investigated the plea of alibi and has recommended for further investigation but the plea of alibi has not been taken by the applicant, in such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of parity with the case of co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi. It is further contended that co-accused Amit Kumar Singh had also not taken the plea of alibi but he has been released on bail after considering the order dated 22.9.2008 by which the co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi was released on bail whereas the co-accused Amit Kumar Singh was not entitled to get the benefit of parity with the co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi. The trial of the applicant is in progress. IN such circumstances, the applicant may not be released on bail. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., the learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case Sunil Kumar Tripathi has been released on bail by another Bench of this Court on 22/9/2008 after considering the report submitted by S.I.S. by which the recommendation of further investigation has been made, after investigating the plea of alibi of co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi, but from the perusal of the order dated 20/10/2008 by which the co-accused Amit Kumar Singh alias Rinku Singh has been released on bail, it appears that the ground of alibi on which the co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi has been released on bail has not been brought to the notice of the Court simply on the ground that co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi has been released on bail and the case of the co-accused Amit Kumar Singh alias Rinku Singh was exactly at par, he has been released on bail whereas the case of the co-accused Amit Kumar Singh alias Rinku Singh was not at par with the case of the co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi for the purpose of considering the bail. The applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of parity with the co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi and co-accused Amit Kumar Singh alias Rinku Singh. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.;