Mahipal vs State of Uttarakhand

Heard Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The applicant is in jail having been implicated in Case Crime No. 39 of 2015, which has been registered under Sections 302 / 201 of IPC at Police Station-Doiwala, District- Dehradun.

This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2015.

This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused, namely Rafal Singh was granted bail by the learned Session Judge, Dehradun on 11.05.2015 and another co-accused, namely, Deepak has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.12.2016, i.e. after rejection of the first bail application of the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 14.10.2014.

A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanha Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1993 CRI. L. J. 938, on the grant of bail in such matters had said as under:-

"The argument of the learned State Counsel is that it is open to different Judges to reject or grant bail to accused even if their cases stand on same footing. I am unable to persuade myself to accept

this submission of the learned State Counsel. The High Court is one court and each Judge is not a separate High Court. It will be unfortunate if the High Court delivers inconsistent verdicts on identical facts. If the argument of the learned State Counsel is carried further it would mean that even the same Judge while deciding bail application moved by several accused, whose cases stand on the same footing, is free to reject or grant bail to any one or more of them at his whim. Such a course would be wholly arbitrary. The public, whose interests all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities ultimately have to serve, will get a poor impression of a court which delivers contrary decisions on identical facts. Hence for the sake of judicial uniformity and non-discrimination it is essential that if the High Court granted bail to one co-accused it should also grant bail to another co-accused whose case stands on the same footing. Alexis de Toqueville remarked that a man''s passion for equality is greater than his desire for liberty."

Considering the facts that the accused is in jail since 14.10.2014 and the co-accused have already been granted bail as well as considering the observation made by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanha (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is liable to be released on bail, at least on ground of parity. Bail application is, therefore, allowed. 5. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the equal amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.

It is made clear that any observations made by this Court are only for the purposes of grant of bail. It shall not be taken into consideration at all in any other proceedings.