Naresh Yadav vs State of U.P.

A. Mateen, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate. I have also gone through the contents of the F.I.R., the bail rejection order and other documents annexed along with the petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that coaccused Dilip Kumar has been released on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case no. 3215 (B) of 2008 vide Annexure3 to the petition. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court two other orders of this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2413 (B) of 2008 and Criminal Misc. Case No. 1295 (B) of 2009 passed by Hon''ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J granting bail to coaccused Chhote Bhaiyya alias Vineet Kumar, Sushil Kumar and Rakesh Yadav on the ground of parity with coaccused Dilip Kumar. Learned counsel has prayed that on the ground of parity, the applicant also deserves to be released on bail.

Admittedly coaccused Dilip Kumar was not arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R and his name came into light in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C whereas the applicant has been arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R itself. Thus the case of present applicant Naresh Yadav is distinguishable from the case of coaccused Dilip Kumar, whose parity is being sought by the learned counsel for the applicant in this bail application.

However, since Hon''ble Sri Narayan Shukla, J has granted bail to coaccused Chhote Bhaiyya alias Vineet Kumar and Sushil Kumar on the ground of parity with coaccused Dilip Kumar, it seems proper that the matter be directed to be listed before Hon''ble Sri Narayan Shukla, J.

List before Hon''ble Shri Narayan Shukla in the next week.