Banshidhar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits of the case on 17.10.2006.

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of applicant Banshidhar Yadav, son of late Surju Yadav in Case Crime No. 287/06, u/s 376/459/380, I.P.C., P.S. Sikarara, district Jaunpur.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the whole record.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that the bail application of co-accused Avdhesh Yadav has been allowed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice K. N. Sinha vide order dated 6.12.2006, passed in C.M.B.A. No. 26965/2006. The case of present applicant is identical on the same footing with the co-accused Avdhesh Yadav. Therefore, his second bail application is also liable to be allowed.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the case of the present applicant is not identical on the same footing with the co-accused Avdhesh Yadav as the bail application of co-accused Avdhesh has been granted on the basis of diabetic disease.

In the present case, there is specific allegation in the F.I.R. as well as the statement of prosecutrix that the present applicant alongwith co-accused Avdhesh committed gang rape with her without her consent. The first bail application of present applicant has already been rejected on merits of the case by Hon''ble Mr. Justice R. N. Misra vide order dated 17.10.2006, passed in C.M.B.A. No. 19617/06. Thereafter it was released by Hon''ble Mr. Justice K. K. Misra, then it has been produced before this Bench.

The first bail application was rejected on merits of the, case on 16.10.2006. Later on, the bail application of co-accused Avdhesh has been allowed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice K. N. Sinha vide order dated 6.12.2006 and on that basis it is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that this is the fresh and good ground to allow his bail application. This contention of learned Counsel for the applicant has no force. The bail application of co-accused Avdhesh Yadav was allowed on the following grounds:

Learned Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that applicant is diabetic, dependent on insulin and filed a certificate from the jail doctor.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the fact of ailment, I find it a fit case for bail.

However, the present applicant is neither a diabetic patient nor dependent on insulin and no any certificate from the jail doctor has been filed in this connection and in such circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the bail application of present applicant is also liable to be allowed on the ground of parity. Therefore, this is not a good and fresh ground after rejecting his first bail application. In such circumstance, the contention made by learned Counsel for the applicant has no force.

Consequently, the second bail application of the present applicant is also rejected.