Deepak alias Sunny vs State of U.P.

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—This is a second bail application of Deepak alias Sunny who has also been described at some places Shani or Sani.

This second bail application is mainly founded on the ground that the coaccused Vinay, Rajendra Kumar and Chintu have been granted bail, copies of the said bail orders are Annexures 3 and 4 respectively. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that apart from these coaccused one of the main accused namely Rahees has also been granted bail on 15.5.2008. It is further submitted that the trial is proceeding very slowly and only two witnesses have been examined. The two witnesses who are the two victims have not been summoned till today. In view of this pendency of the trial and the manner in which it is proceeding Sri Paul contends that the applicant is also entitled for bail.

I have perused the FIR as also the Bail Orders which have been made the prime basis for claiming bail on parity. The applicant is accused of being involved in a gang rape of two foreigners who were Japanese citizens. The bail application of Ajay, Rajendra and Chintu granted by this Court indicates that the case of those accused was distinguished on the basis of the role assigned which was different from that of the main accused namely Rahees, Rajan Singh and the applicant. The applicant is, therefore, one of the main accused and the main culprits who committed the offence. It appears that the bail of Vinay and Rajendra was granted on the ground of their names having surfaced in the statement of one Mahesh who alleged that Vinay and Rajendra were good friends of the main accused. The Court took into consideration the facts that the applicants therein could not have taken any money from the main accused for the alleged assault on the two Japanese girls. The case of the said applicants was distinguished from the main accused and the bail was granted on 7.4.2008.

The first bail application of accused Rahees was rejected on 7.1.2008 but the second bail application was allowed on 15.5.2008 when a parity was claimed by Rahees on the ground of bail having been granted to Vinay and Rajendra. This second bail application of Rahees was granted after taking into account the fact that he was father of six children who were minors and the applicant''s wife was ailing unable to earned anything. The Court recited in the order that even though the offence is very serious but the plight of the children and the wife and further that the charge has been framed with no likelihood of the accused tampering the evidence, bail was granted.

After the aforesaid second bail application of Rahees was allowed, another coaccused Chintu who was not the main accused was released, as it was alleged that he was at the most a conspirator and nothing beyond it.

The applicant has not stated in any of the paragraphs as to how his circumstances are identical to that of Rahees where a compassionate view has been taken. Even otherwise I have reservations about the reasons given in the second bail application order of coaccused Rahees. A compassionate ground cannot be in my opinion the basis of a grant of bail in such a heinous crime. Any mercy to the accused, in such a situation would be premium to a criminal who has committed a heinous offence and is one of the main accused. The incident and the nature of the involvment of the applicant are so trivial nor can it be so conveniently considered as a passing occurrence. It is rather a matter of national shame. Mere pendency of the trial and delay in summoning of the witnesses by itself cannot be the sole ground to grant bail. With due respect and deference to the reasons given in the bail order of Rahees dated 15.5.2008 and there being no parity on the facts with the other coaccused including Rahees, I do not find any new ingredient so as to grant bail to the applicant in this second bail application.

It is, accordingly rejected.