ASHOK SRIVASTAVA,J. - (1.) THIS second bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Mulayam Patel, who is involved in Case Crime No. 181 of 2008, under Section 376 I.P.C. and 3(i)(xii) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sarai Mamrej, district Allahabad. The first bail being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26829 of 2008 was rejected on merits by this court on 17.10.2008 by Hon'ble A.K. Roopanwal, J. This bail application was released by Hon'ble A.K. Roopanwal, J. vide order dated 10.8.2009.
(2.) THE present bail application has been moved mainly on the ground that the co-accused of this case Surendra Patel has been granted bail by this Court on 6.2.2009 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2755 of 2009. In this context it has been argued that on the ground of parity the second bail application of the applicant should be allowed because role assigned to the co-accused Surendra Patel is identical to the alleged role of the applicant, Mulayam Patel. It has also been contended from the side of the applicant that there are additional grounds also in this second bail application. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the records.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the grounds taken in the first bail application and that of second bail application, it is evident that but for the fact that bail application of the co-accused Surendra Patel was allowed on a date which is subsequent to the date on which the first bail application of the applicant was rejected no fresh ground has been taken. Substantial grounds which have been taken in the second bail application are either already been taken in the first bail application or they were available to the applicant when first bail application was moved on his behalf. Therefore, I am confining myself to the legal issue whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. From the perusal of the judgment reported in 2009 (1) J.I.C. 202 (All.) ( Neeraj Vs. State of U.P.), it is evident that while passing the bail order only this much has been written by the Hon'ble Judges in the relevant para (i.e. para 4) that they have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and they were of the opinion that case of the appellant was identical to those accused persons who were granted bail in the past on the ground of parity. It will not be out of place to mention here that first para of the aforesaid judgment relates to case crime number, Sessions Trial number etc., second contains facts of the case in brief, third discloses the brief argument advanced before the Hon'ble Judges and the fifth relates to the operative portion of the judgment. The 6th, 7th and 8th paragraphs relate to the matter which have nothing to do with the merits of the case. From the perusal of this order it is evident that no law point whatsoever has been determined by the Hon'ble Judges in that case. Therefore, this ruling is of no help to me. ;