# Ram Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 846
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-23
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 52424 of 2022
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50032
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161,164 &
439 - Special Powers of High court or
Court of Session regarding bail , Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148,
323, 452, 504, 506, 304 & 354(Ka) - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 7/8 - It is a
sound exercise of judicial discipline for an
order granting or rejecting bail to record
the reasons which have weighed with the
court for the exercise of its discretionary
power - If the order granting bail to an
accused is not supported by reasons, the
same cannot form the basis for granting
bail to a co-accused on the ground of
parity.(Para - 18,38)

Applicant sneaked into house of the victim
(aged about 15 years) - attached to his house -
tried to outrage modesty of minor girl -
deceased was beaten to death by applicant and
other co-accused persons - witnesses including
victim (daughter of deceased) and wife of
deceased fully supported prosecution case -
danda was used in commission of crime -
recovered at the pointing out of the applicant -
bail granted to co-accused.(Para - 27,46)

HELD:- Bail granted to Co-accuseds without
consideration of facts or reason. Case of present
applicant distinguishable from the case of other
co-accused persons. No allegation against them
with regard to outraging modesty of minor
4 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
847
victim which was only been assigned to present
applicant. Further incident, which took place,
was the outcome of the act committed by the
applicant in the night.(Para - 48)

Bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,974 of 47,330. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39974 for what follows._

846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SC/ST Act is concerned, the impugned
order has been passed by the POCSO court
and not by the SC/ST Court. As per
judgement of the coordinate bench of this
court in Rinku (supra) the court found that
when in a case the offences both under
POCSO Act and SC/ST Act are arising out
of same crime and may be tried at the same
time, the Special Court of POCSO would
have jurisdiction. Though, it is argued that
this judgement is about the bail application
but in the opinion of the court, Section 14A
of SC/ST Act provides a provision of
appeal from any judgement, sentence or
order of a Special Court and with regard to
SC/ST Act, the Special Court shall be the
SC/ST Court and not the POCSO Court.
The impugned order has been passed by the
POCSO Court, so in my opinion the
argument of the learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 in this regard is not
tenable.

31. In view of the above discussion,
the summoning order dated 29.11.2018
passed by the Special Judge, POCSO
Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.
6, Ghaziabad and the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 77 of 2018 (X Kumari
Vs. Sanjeev Sahu and others) under
Sections 354, 354B, 452, 504, 506 IPC,
Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act and Section
3 of the SC/ST Act, Police Station
Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad pending
before
the
6th
Additional
District
Judge/Sessions
Judge,
Ghaziabad,
are
quashed.

32. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is, thus, allowed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 846
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 52424 of 2022

Ram Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Upendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Rabindra Kumar Singh (AGA), Sri
Shekhar Gangal, Sri Shamsher Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161,164 &
439 - Special Powers of High court or
Court of Session regarding bail , Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148,
323, 452, 504, 506, 304 & 354(Ka) - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 7/8 - It is a
sound exercise of judicial discipline for an
order granting or rejecting bail to record
the reasons which have weighed with the
court for the exercise of its discretionary
power - If the order granting bail to an
accused is not supported by reasons, the
same cannot form the basis for granting
bail to a co-accused on the ground of
parity.(Para - 18,38)

Applicant sneaked into house of the victim
(aged about 15 years) - attached to his house -
tried to outrage modesty of minor girl -
deceased was beaten to death by applicant and
other co-accused persons - witnesses including
victim (daughter of deceased) and wife of
deceased fully supported prosecution case -
danda was used in commission of crime -
recovered at the pointing out of the applicant -
bail granted to co-accused.(Para - 27,46)

HELD:- Bail granted to Co-accuseds without
consideration of facts or reason. Case of present
applicant distinguishable from the case of other
co-accused persons. No allegation against them
with regard to outraging modesty of minor
4 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
847
victim which was only been assigned to present
applicant. Further incident, which took place,
was the outcome of the act committed by the
applicant in the night.(Para - 48)

Bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Deepak Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & anr. , (2022) 8
SCC 559

2. Dataram Vs St. of U.P. & anr. , (2018) 3 SCC
22

3. Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT of Delhi & ors. ,
(2001) 4 SCC 280

4. Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh &
ors. , (2002)3 SCC 598

5. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan @
Pappu Yadav & anr. , (2004)7 SCC 528

6. Chaman Lal Vs St. of U.P. , (2004)7 SCC 525

7. Masroor Vs St. of U.P. , (2009) 12 SCC 286

8. Prashant Kumar Sarkar Vs Ashis Chatterjee &
anr. , (2010)14 SCC 496

9. Anil Kumar Yadav Vs St. (NCT of Delhi),
(2018)12 SCC 129

10. Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & anr. ,
(2020)2 SCC 118

11. Jagjeet Singh & ors. Vs Ashish Mishra @
Monu & anr. , (2022) 9 SCC 321

12. ''Y' Vs St. of Raj. & anr. , 2022 live Law (SC)
384

13. Indresh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & anr. , Live
Law (SC) 610

14. Ajwar Vs Niyaj Ahmad & anr., Criminal
Appeal No. 1722 of 2022 (arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No. 8139 of 2022)

15. Sunder Lal Vs St. of U.P., 1983 Cr.L.J. , (FB)
(Alld High Court)

16. Chander @ Chandra Vs St. of U.P. , 1998
Cr.L.J., 2378

17. Brijmani Devi Vs Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4
SCC 497

18. Naresh Vs St. of Mah. AIR 1967 SC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Upendra Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional
Government Advocate and Mr. Shamsher
Singh, learned counsel, who is appearing
on behalf of Mr. Shekhar Gangal, learned
counsel for the first informant.

2. By means of this application under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Ram
Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No.
332 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323,
452, 504, 506, 304, 354(Ka) IPC and
Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station
Harduaganj,
District
Aligarh,
seeks
enlargement on bail during the pendency of
trial.

Facts of the case

3. As per prosecution case, in brief,
informant who is brother-in-law (Jeeja) of
the victim, lodged a first information report
on 30.08.2021 against Gulab Singh, Ram
Singh (present applicant), Lekhraj, Vimlesh
and Shanti Devi alleging inter-alia that on
27.08.2021, his sister-in-law (Saali) aged
about 15 years was sleeping alone at the
roof of her house. At about 10:00 in the
night, the present applicant Ram Singh,
who is her neighbour, sneaked into her
house and with an intention to outrage her
modesty, caught hold of her. On raising
alarm by the victim, her mother Pushpa
Devi and father Jai Narayan woke up and
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
when they rushed at the roof, applicant
Ram Singh succeeded in fleeing away.
Since it was late night, therefore, victim's
father did not go to the police station to
lodge FIR. On the next day i.e. 28.08.2021
when Jai Narayan was going to lodge FIR
along with victim, at that time, the accused
persons namely Gulab Singh, Ram Singh
(present applicant), Lekhraj, Vimlesh and
Shanti Devi armed with lathi, danda, farsa
and iron rod barged into his house and
started mounting pressure upon them for
compromise. When Jai Narayan refused for
the same, they started beating him. The FIR
further alleges that when his wife Pushpa
Devi and victim tried to intervene, they
were also belaboured by them. Thereafter
the accused persons ran away giving threat
to them. The people of the locality
collected there gave information about the
said incident to the police by dialling 112,
on which the police reached the spot and
took Jai Narayan to Deen Dayal Hospital.
Considering his condition as serious, he
was referred to Medical Hospital, but since,
there was no facility of ventilator at
Medical Hospital, he was referred to
Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, where he
succumbed to the injuries.

Submissions on behalf of the
applicant.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for
the applicant that general role of assault has
been assigned to all the accused persons
named in the FIR and no specific role has
been attributed to the present applicant. It is
also submitted that co-accused Smt. Shanti
Devi and Smt. Vimlesh have been granted
bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 01.04.2022 in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 54440 of 2021
and thereafter other co-accused persons
namely Gulab Singh and Lekhraj have been
granted bail vide order dated 09.09.2022
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 25969 of 2022 only on the ground of
parity of bail order of Smt. Shanti Devi and
Smt. Vimlesh, as noted above, therefore,
the applicant on the Principle of parity is
also entitled to be released on bail. It is
argued that if the applicant is not granted
bail on the ground of parity, it would be
violative
of
his
fundamental
right.
Applicant has no criminal history to his
credit and is languishing in jail since
22.09.2021.

Submissions on behalf of the
State

5. Per contra, Shri Rabindra Kumar
Singh, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant
in the light of prosecution case as
mentioned in the FIR. It is also pointed out
that the facts of this case, the injuries found
on the body of the deceased, statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim as
well as statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of other prosecution witnesses,
recorded during investigation, have not
been taken into consideration by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while granting
bail to co-accused persons as indicated
herein above.

6. Placing reliance upon the decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak
Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another,
(2022) 8 SCC 559, learned Additional
Government Advocate submits that it is the
duty of the Court to record some reason
while granting or rejecting the bail,
whereas in the bail order dated 01.04.2022
of co-accused Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt.
Vimlesh, no reason has been given for
4 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
849
granting bail. Further co-accused Gulab
Singh and Lekhraj have been granted bail
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 09.9.2022 only on the ground
of parity. Learned Additional Government
Advocate further submits that parity cannot
be the sole criteria to grant bail and if the
bail granted to similarly placed co-accused
persons without assigning any reasons, then
on the basis of such bail orders merely on
the ground of parity, the bail application
should not be allowed. It is also submitted
that the victim in her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the
prosecution
version
with
regard
to
outraging her modesty and assault on her
father by all the five accused persons,
named in the FIR. Learned Additional
Government Advocate also submitted that
judgment in the case of Dataram vs. State
of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 is
not applicable to the fact of the present
case.

Settled principles for consideration
of prayer for bail

7. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in plethora of judgements cautioned
that while granting bail, the Courts should
exercise discretion judiciously and framed
guidelines for granting bail to an accused.
Now, it would be useful to refer to some of
the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the matter of grant of bail to the accused.

8. In Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT
of Delhi and Others (2001) 4 SCC 280,
Hon'ble Apex Court laid down following
principles for granting bail to the accused:

"(a) While granting bail the court
has to keep in mind not only the nature of
the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a
conviction and the nature of evidence in
support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of
the witnesses being tampered with or the
apprehension of there being a threat for the
complainant should also weigh with the
court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to
have the entire evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt but there ought always to be a prima
facie satisfaction of the court in support of
the charge.

(d)
Frivolity
in
prosecution
should always be considered and it is only
the element of genuineness that shall have
to be considered in the matter of grant of
bail, and in the event of there being some
doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events,
the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

9. In Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs.
Sudarshan Singh and others, (2002)3
SCC 598, Hon'ble Apex Court laid down
the factors that must guide the exercise of
the power to grant bail in the following
terms:

"3. Grant of bail though being a
discretionary order-- but, however, calls
for exercise of such a discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent
reason cannot be sustained. Needless to
record, however, that the grant of bail is
dependent upon the contextual facts of the
matter being dealt with by the court and
facts, however, do always vary from case to
case.The nature of the offence is one of the
basic considerations for the grant of bail --
more heinous is the crime, the greater is
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the chance of rejection of the bail, though,
however, dependent on the factual matrix
of the matter.

4. Apart from the above, certain
other which may be attributed to be
relevant considerations may also be
noticed at this juncture, though however,
the same are only illustrative and not
exhaustive, neither there can be any. The
considerations being:

(a) While granting bail the court
has to keep in mind not only the nature of
the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a
conviction and the nature of evidence in
support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of
the witnesses being tampered with or the
apprehension of there being a threat for the
complainant should also weigh with the
court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to
have the entire evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt but there ought always to be a prima
facie satisfaction of the court in support of
the charge.

(d)
Frivolity
in
prosecution
should always be considered and it is only
the element of genuineness that shall have
to be considered in the matter of grant of
bail, and in the event of there being some
doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events,
the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

10. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs.
Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and
another
(2004)7 SCC 528,
Hon'ble
Supreme Court held thus:

"The law in regard to grant or
refusal of bail is very well settled. The
court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as
a matter of course. Though at the stage of
granting bail a detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in
such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted
particularly, where the accused is charged
of having committed a serious offence. Any
order devoid of such reasons would suffer
from non-application of mind."

11. In Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P.
(2004)7 SCC 525, Hon'ble Supreme Court
while dealing with an application for bail,
has stated that certain factors are to be
considered for grant of bail, they are:

"......(i) nature of accusation and
the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of
tampering
with
the
witnesses
or
apprehension of threat to the complainant,
and (iii) prima faice satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge.

12. In Masroor Vs. State of U.P.
(2009) 12 SCC 286, Hon'ble Supreme
Court while giving emphasis to ascribe
reasons for grant of bail, however, brief it
may be, the Court observed:

" There is no denying the fact that
the liberty of an individual is precious and
is to to be zealously protected by the courts.
Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be
absolute in every situation. The valuable
right of liberty of an individual and the
interest of the society in general has to be
balanced. Liberty of a persons accused of
4 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
851
an offence would depend upon the
exigencies of the case."

13. In the case of Prashant Kumar
Sarkar
Vs.
Ashis
Chatterjee
and
another, (2010)14 SCC 496, the accused
therein was facing trial for the offence
under Section 302 IPC. After being
unsuccessful to obtain bail from the
Sessions Court, the accused preferred a
bail application before the High Court.
The High Court allowed the bail to the
accused by a short order, by observing
thus:

"Having regard to the nature of
the alleged crime, we do not think that
interest of investigation requires or
justifies further detention of the present
petitioner (accused) at this stage."

14. Being aggrieved by the order of
High Court granting bail to the accused,
the
first
informant
approached
the
Supreme Court by filing appeal. Hon'ble
Supreme Court set aside the order of the
High Court and allowed the appeal filed
by the informant by holding thus"

"We are of the opinion that the
impugned
order
is
clearly
unsustainable. It is trite that this Court
does not, normally, interfere with an
order
passed
by
the
High Court
granting or rejecting bail to the
accused.
However,
it
is
equally
incumbent upon the High Court to
exercise
its
discretion
judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance
with the basic principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of this Court on
the point. It is well settled that, among
other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the
accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in
the event of conviction;

(iv)
danger
of
the
accused
absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means,
position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence
being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail."

15. The Court in Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar (Supra) went on to note that it is
manifest that if the High Court does not
advert to these relevant considerations and
mechanically grants bail, the said order
would suffer from the vice of nonapplication of mind rendering it to be
illegal.

16. In Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2018)12 SCC 129,
Hon'ble Supreme Court spelt out some of
the significant considerations which must
be placed in the balance in deciding the bail
application, which reads as under:

"While granting bail, the relevant
considerations
are:-
(i)
nature
of
seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of
the evidence and circumstances which are
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood
of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the
impact that his release may make on the
prosecution witnesses, its impact on the
society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering.
No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There
are no hard and fast rules regarding grant
or refusal of bail, each case has to be
considered on its own merits. The matter
always calls for judicious exercise of
discretion by the Court."

17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia
and another, (2020)2 SCC 118, while
setting aside the order of the High Court
granting bail, observed thus"

"It is manifest that if the High
Court does not advert to these relevant
considerations and mechanically grants
bail, the said order would suffer from the
vice of non-application of mind, rendering
it to be illegal..."

"The provision for an accused to
be released on bail touches upon the liberty
of an individual. It is for this reason that
this Court does not ordinarily interfere
with an order of the High Court granting
bail. However, where the discretion of the
High Court to grant bail has been
exercised without the due application of
mind or in contravention of the directions
of this Court, such an order granting bail is
liable to be set aside. The Court is required
to factor, amongst other things, a prima
facie view that the accused had committed
the offence, the nature and gravity of the
offence and the likelihood of the accused
obstructing the proceedings of the trial in
any manner or evading the course of
justice. The provision for being released on
bail draws an appropriate balance between
public interest in the administration of
justice and the protection of individual
liberty pending adjudication of the case.
However, the grant of bail is to be secured
within the bounds of the law and in
compliance with the conditions laid down
by this Court. It is for this reason that a
court must balance numerous factors that
guide the exercise of the discretionary
power to grant bail on a case by case basis.
Inherent in this determination is whether,
on an analysis of the record, it appears that
there is a prima facie or reasonable cause
to believe that the accused had committed
the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for
the court to examine in detail the evidence
on record to come to a conclusive finding."

18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mahipal (Supra) went on to observe that
there is another reason why the judgment of
the learned Single Judge has fallen into
error. It is a sound exercise of judicial
discipline for an order granting or rejecting
bail to record the reasons which have
weighed with the court for the exercise of
its discretionary power. In the present case,
the assessment by the High Court is
essentially contained in a single paragraph
which reads:

"4. Considering the contentions
put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner
and taking into account the facts and
circumstances of the case and without
expressing opinion on the merits of the
case, this court deems it just and proper to
enlarge the petitioner on bail."

19. Supreme Court further held:

"Merely
recording
―having
perused the record and on the facts and
circumstances of the case does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial
order. It is a fundamental premise of open
4 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
853
justice, to which our judicial system is
committed,
that
factors
which
have
weighed in the mind of the judge in the
rejection or the grant of bail are recorded
in the order passed. Open justice is
premised on the notion that justice should
not only be done, but should manifestly and
undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of
judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the
heart of this commitment. Questions of the
grant of bail concern both liberty of
individuals
undergoing
criminal
prosecution as well as the interests of the
criminal justice system in ensuring that
those who commit crimes are not afforded
the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges
are duty bound to explain the basis on
which they have arrived at a conclusion."

20. Recently, a three Judges' Bench of
Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. V.
Ashish Mishra @ Monu & another,
(2022) 9 SCC 321, has reiterated the
factors that the Court must consider at the
time of granting bail under Section 439
Cr.P.C.
as
well
as
highlighted
the
circumstances where Apex Court may
interfere when bail has been granted in
violation of the requirements under the
abovementioned section. The Supreme
Court observed:

" We may, at the outset, clarify
that power to grant bail under Section 439
of CrPC, is one of wide amplitude. A High
Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may
be,
are
bestowed
with
considerable
discretion while deciding an application for
bail. But, as has been held by this Court on
multiple occasions, this discretion is not
unfettered. On the contrary, the High Court
of the Sessions Court must grant bail after
the
application
of
a
judicial
mind,
following well established principles, and
not in a cryptic or mechanical manner."

21. In ''Y' Vs. State of Rajasthan
and another, 2022 live Law (SC) 384, the
Apex Court observed:

"22. The impugned order passed
by the High Court is cryptic, and does not
suggest any application of mind. There is a
recent trend of passing such orders
granting or refusing to grant bail, where
the Courts make a general observation that
"the facts and the circumstances" have
been considered. No specific reasons are
indicated which precipitated the passing of
the order by the Court.

23. Such a situation continues
despite various judgments of this Court
wherein this Court has disapproved of
such a practice."

22. This Court has granted bail to
accused Mintu alias Jitendra , who in
involved in Case Crime No. 08 of 2019,
under Sections 302, 201, 376 read with
120B IPC and under Sections 5 and 6 of the
POCSO Act for the alleged rape and
murder of an eleven year old child. The
High Court while granting bail held as
under"

"Considering the overall acts and
circumstances, the nature of allegations, the
gravity of offence, the severity of the
punishment, the evidence appearing against
the accused, submission of learned counsel
for the parties, considering the law laid down
in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2018(3), SCC, 2 and also the fact
that aforesaid co-accused has been admitted
to the concession of bail by this Court, but
without expressing any opinion on merits,
this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

Accordingly, the bail application
stands allowed."
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. Being dissatisfied with the order
of this Court granting bail, the first
informant Indresh Kumar, approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indresh Kumar
Vs. State of U.P. And another, Live Law
(SC) 610, Hon'ble Supreme Court while
allowing the appeal and setting aside the
order of the High Court, Hon'ble Supreme
Court held thus:

"The offence alleged against the
respondent-accused of rape and cold
blooded murder of an eleven year old child
is heinous and dastardly. The conduct of
killing a child to avoid getting caught of the
offence, inter alia, of rape and then burial
of the child as also her stained clothes and
other articles under the soil to cause
disappearance of evidence and evade
apprehension for the offence of murder is
indicative of a tendency to evade the
process of law. It is possible that the
respondent-accused might flee to evade the
process of law.

The High Court has ignored the
material on record including incriminating
statements of witnesses under Section
164/161
of
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure. Statements under Section 161
may not be admissible in evidence, but are
relevant in considering the prima facie
case against an accused in an application
for grant of bail in case of grave offence.

The High Court has granted the
respondent-accused
bail,
without
considering the heinous nature of the
allegations against him, the gravity of the
offence alleged and severity of the
punishment in the event of ultimate
conviction, only because a co-accused had
also been granted bail by the High Court.

The impugned order of the High
Court incorrectly states that bail is granted
considering
all
the
facts
and
circumstances,
nature
of
allegations,
gravity of the offence, severity of the
punishment,
the
evidence
appearing
against the accused and the law laid down
in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others, (2018)2 SCC 22. This has not been
done. "

24. The Apex Court further went on
to note that the observations and directions
in Dataram Singh (Supra) were in the
context of arrest and long custodial
detention in a case under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for
issuing cheque and then stopping payment
of the cheque. Bail application had been
rejected, first by the Trial Court and then
by the High Court even after five months of
detention of the accused in custody.

25. In Ajwar Vs. Niyaj Ahmad and
another, Criminal Appeal No. 1722 of
2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8139
of 2022), Hon'ble Supreme Court while
setting aside the order of Allahabad High
Court held as under:

"However, the reasons in support
of an order granting or refusing bail must
emerges from the record and must show a
due application of mind by the Judge to the
facts of the case. An over-burdened docket
is no justification for formulaic justice. We,
therefore, disapprove of the manner in
which the Single Judge of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad has been
dealing with applications for bail.

Factual analysis of the present
case.
4 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
855

26. Now turning to the facts of the
instance case. After the incident, the
injured (deceased) was taken to Deen
Dayal Hospital, but as his condition was
precarious, he was referred to Medical
College. Since the Ventilator was not
available in the Medical College, he was
referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi,
where he breathed his last. The post
mortem on the cadaver was conducted by
the Department of Forensic Medicine &
Texicology Vardhman Mahavir Medical
College & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.
Doctor found the following injuries:

(i) Lacerated wound of size 6.5cm x
0.5 cm x bone deep, present vertically over
parietal region of head on right side, lower
end of the wound situated 7.0cm away from
midline and 9.0cm above right supra-orbital
ridge.

(ii) Lacerated wound of size 3.1cm
x 0.8cm x bone deep, present over parietal
region of scalp on right side situated 10.1 cm
above right supra-orbital ridge and 2.0cm
away from midline on right side.

(iii) Lacerated wound of size 0.3cm
x 0.1cm x 0.1cm present over inner aspect of
lower lip in midline.

(iv) Bluish contusion of size 1.0cm
x 1.0cm present over inner aspect of lower lip
on right side.

(v)
Reddish
brown
scabbed
abrasion of size 5.1cm x 1.0cm present over
back of right shoulder situated at the level of
top of right shoulder and 17.1cm away from
midline.

In respect of the position of the
head
of
the
deceased,
following
observations were made:

"Scalp: Extravasation of blood,
present over right fronto-parietal region of
scalp and diffusely present over left side of
scalp.

Temporalis
muscle:
Right
temporalis muscle contused.

Skull: A piece of skull bone
missing underneath craniotomy wound
from left fronto-tempo-parietal region over
an area of 13.0cm x 10.0cm. Linear
fracture of length 2.2cm present over floor
of middle cranial fossa on left side. Sutural
fracture of length 5.2cm present along
coronal suture on right side. Linear
fracture of length 5.1cm present over right
temporal bone. Extravasation of blood
present over fractured sites.

Membranes:
Surgically
cut
underneath craniotomy site and replaced
with artificial graft covered with blood
clots.

Brain:
Subdural
and
subarachnoid
hemorrhages
diffusely
present over surface of bilateral cerebral
hemispheres."

Cause of death: Death is due to
cranio-cerebral damage as a result of ante
mortem
injuries
sustained
to
head
produced by blunt force impace. All
injuries are ante mortem in nature and
injury No. 1, injury No. 2 along with
internal injuries, sustained to head are
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course
of nature.

27. There are two incidents in the
matter. In the first incident, the applicant
sneaked into the house of the victim, which
is attached to his house and tried to outrage
her modesty. The second incident is the
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stem of the first incident, in which the
deceased was beaten to death by the
applicant and other co-accused persons.

28. Victim, who is aged about 15
years as per medical examination report, in
her statement under Section 161 as well as
164 Cr.P.C. has given a vivid description of
the offence by stating that on 27.8.2021 at
about 10 PM, when she was sleeping on the
roof of her house, accused-applicant Ram
Singh, came to her roof, which is attached
to his roof and in order to outrage her
modesty, captured her. On her shrieks,
when her parents came to the roof,
accused-applicant jumped to his roof. Due
to night, she could not get her report
lodged. On 28.8.2021 when she along with
her father were going to get her report
lodged, accused Gulab Singh, Ram Singh
(applicant), lekhraj, Smt. Vimlesh and Smt.
Shanti Devi barged into her house and
pressurized her father for not lodging the
FIR. When her father did not surrender to
their words, all the accused persons
assaulted him with lathi, danda and iron rod
and fled away from the scene extending
threats. Smt. Pushpa Devi, wife of the
deceased, who is the eyewitness of the
incident
have
also
supported
the
prosecution case. As indicated in the postmortem report, a piece of skull bone was
found
missing
underneath
craniotomy
wound from left fronto-tempo-parietal
region over an area of 13.00 cm x 10.00
cm.

29. After the arrest of the present
applicant Ram Singh, he confessed to his
guilt and stated before the police that he
used to molest the victim and a day prior to
the instant incident, he also tried to outrage
her modesty. He also stated that he along
with
the
aforesaid
accused
persons
assaulted the deceased with danda. Danda,
which was used for assaulting the deceased
was also recovered at the pointing out of
the applicant. At present, there is nothing
on record to disbelieve the statements of
the victim and wife of the deceased.

Discussion about the issue of
parity

30. The arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the applicant is that coaccused Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt.
Vimlesh having been enlarged on bail by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 01.4.2022 and other co-accused
Gulab Singh and Lekhraj vide order dated
09.9.2022 as noted above, the applicant is
also entitled to bail.

31 . I find that an issue of legal nodus
of ubiquitous manifestation of law of parity
and gravity of offence has arisen before this
Court. In this regard, it would be apposite
to discuss and consider the following
decisions.

32. In Sunder Lal Vs. State of U.P.,
1983 Cr.L.J. (FB) (Allahabd High Court),
in addition to the other questions, a
question has cropped up before the Full
Bench of this Court that by reasons of fact
that other co-accused having been granted
bail, the applicant should also be granted
bail only on the ground of parity. The
learned single Judge in order to avoid
delay and expedite the disposal of the
bail application referred the whole case
for consideration by the Bench.

33. The Full Bench (Supra) of this
Court did not agree with the contention of
the learned counsel for the applicant. Since
the learned single Judge had referred the
whole case for decision by the Full Bench,
the Bench called upon the learned Counsel
4 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
857
for the applicant to argue the bail
application on merits.

34. The learned counsel only pointed
out that by reasons of fact that other coaccused has been admitted to bail the
applicant should also be granted bail.

35. The Full Bench while rejecting
the bail application of the application held
thus"

"This argument alone that by
reasons of fact that other co-accused has
been admitted to bail the applicant should
also be granted bail, would not be
sufficient for admitting the applicant to bail
who is involved in a triple murder case.
Moreover, it appears that on merits this
application had not been pressed before the
learned single Judge but only on legal
ground it was prayed that the applicant be
admitted to bail."

36. The Division Bench of this Court
in Chander alias Chandra Vs. State of
U.P., 1998 Cr.L.J., 2378, after noticing the
submission made on behalf of the applicant
that an accused is entitled to bail if a coaccused similarly placed has been granted
bail, the learned Judge of this Court has
formulated the following question for
decision by the larger Bench:

"Let the papers of this case be
laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
constituting a larger Bench to lay down
guidelines as to what should be done in a
case like this where bail has been granted to
a co-accused, and whether in the present
case (1) the bail application of the applicant
should be rejected although bail has been
granted to a co-acused whose case is on the
same footing." (2) whether bail granted to
the co-accused should be cancelled."

37. Thereafter, Hon'ble the Chief
Justice has referred the matter to the
Division Bench of this Court. Before the
Division Bench, it was argued that if an
accused is granted bail, a similarly placed
co-accused should also be granted bail on
the principle of parity.

38. The Division Bench did not
impress by the submission of learned
counsel for the applicant therein and held
as under:

"1. If the order granting bail to
an accused is not supported by reasons, the
same cannot form the basis for granting
bail to a co-accused on the ground of
parity.

"2. A judge is not bound to grant
bail to an accused on the ground of parity
even where the order granting bail to an
identically placed co-accused contains
reasons, if the same has been passed in
flagrant violation of well settled principle
and ignores to take into consideration the
relevant factors essential for granting
bail."

39. In Deepak Yadav (Supra) the
first information report was lodged against
Harjeet Yadav, Sushil Kumar Yadav and
two unknown persons with the allegation
that the accused persons fired at the
deceased with common intention to kill
him. The bullet shot hit his right cheek and
made its exit through the other side leaving
him severely injured. He was admitted to
the hospital where he told his wife that he
was shot by accused-Harjeet Yadav and
one Sushil Yadav and that they were
accompanied by two other persons as well.
The statement given by the deceased was
noted down by Shri Mahesh Kumar
Chaurasia, SSP/ACP, Lucknow and Shri
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ashok Kumar Singh, SI/First Investigating
Officer.
Accused/Harjeet
Yadav
was
arrested and one country made pistol with
two live cartridges were recovered from
him. After the death of the victim, the case
was converted to one under Section 302
IPC. The Bail application moved by the
accused-Harjeet Yadav was rejected by the
Sessions Judge, Lucknow on the ground
that he has been named on the basis of the
information given by the deceased himself.

40. Being unsuccessful to obtain bail
from the Sessions Court, the accusedHarjeet Yadav moved the High Court for
grant of bail, where a plea has been taken
that co-accused Sushil Kumar Yadav has
been granted bail by the High Court on
18.10.2021 in Bail Application No. 8501 of
2021 and that the case of accused/Harjeet
Yadav stands on identical footing making
him entitled for bail on the ground of
parity. The bail application was allowed
vide order dated 22.10.2021. The operative
portion of the judgement reads as under:

"Keeping in view the nature of
the offence, arguments advanced on behalf
of
the
parties,
evidence
on
record
regarding complicity of the accused, larger
mandate
of
the
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India and the dictum of
Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh
Vs. State of U.P. & Anr (2018) 3 SCC 22
and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. The bail application is allowed.

41. After considering pleuthera of
judgements on the guiding principle for
adjudicating
a
regular
bail,
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav (Supra)
held as under:

26. "The importance of assigning
reasoning for grant or denial of bail can
never be undermined. There is prima facie
need to indicate reasons particularly in
cases of grant or denial of bail where the
accused is charged with a serious offence.
The sound reasoning in a particular case is
a reassurance that discretion has been
exercised by the decision maker after
considering all the relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations."

" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

"39. Grant of bail to the
Respondent No.