# Vivek Verma v. The U.O.I

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 165
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1464 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vivek-verma-v-the-u-o-i-48467
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section
438- Bail- Third Bail Application - Principle
of Parity - As to whether after rejection of
bail application of any accused person, the
other co-accused persons having similar
role or lesser role if granted bail, can be
considered
as
a
new
ground
for
considering
the
subsequent
bail
application - Two co-accused persons,
namely, Aman Singh and Faisal have been
granted bail subsequent to rejection of
first
bail
application
of
the
present
applicant and role of those co-accused
persons and the present applicant is more
or less similar as considered above, rather,
is having lesser gravity- Out of 101
prosecution
witnesses,
only
25
prosecution
witnesses
have
been
examined by now, therefore, there is no
possibility to conclude the trial in near
future and the period of incarceration of
the present applicant which is more than
five years and two months.

Settled law that where the similarly situated coaccused
have
been
enlarged
on
bail
subsequently then consistency requires that the
present accused should also be enlarged on bail
more so in view of the fact that the accused has
undergone a substantial period of incarceration
without any likelihood of early conclusion of the
trial. (Para 25, 26)

Bail Application accordingly allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

## Text

5 All. Vivek Verma Vs. The U.O.I.
165

67. The appellant Phool Singh is in
jail in execution of non bailable warrant
and appellant Kallu is also in jail.

68. The appellants Hari @ Harish
Chandra and Charan are on bail. Their bail
bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged.

69. The Court concerned is directed to
take the appellants namely Hari @ Harish
Chandra and Charan in custody and send
them to jail to serve out the remaining
sentence.

70. The office is directed to transmit
back the lower court record along with a
certified copy of this judgment for
information and necessary compliance.

71. Certify this judgment to the court
below immediately for necessary action.
----------
(2022)05ILR A165
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1464 of 2022

Vivek Verma ...Applicant
Versus
The U.O.I. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Atul Verma, Akhilendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section
438- Bail- Third Bail Application - Principle
of Parity - As to whether after rejection of
bail application of any accused person, the
other co-accused persons having similar
role or lesser role if granted bail, can be
considered
as
a
new
ground
for
considering
the
subsequent
bail
application - Two co-accused persons,
namely, Aman Singh and Faisal have been
granted bail subsequent to rejection of
first
bail
application
of
the
present
applicant and role of those co-accused
persons and the present applicant is more
or less similar as considered above, rather,
is having lesser gravity- Out of 101
prosecution
witnesses,
only
25
prosecution
witnesses
have
been
examined by now, therefore, there is no
possibility to conclude the trial in near
future and the period of incarceration of
the present applicant which is more than
five years and two months.

Settled law that where the similarly situated coaccused
have
been
enlarged
on
bail
subsequently then consistency requires that the
present accused should also be enlarged on bail
more so in view of the fact that the accused has
undergone a substantial period of incarceration
without any likelihood of early conclusion of the
trial. (Para 25, 26)

Bail Application accordingly allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha Vs St. of U.P.,1993
Cri.LJ 938

2. U.O.I Vs K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 SC 712

3. Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs The Director, CBI , Crl.
Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl)
3610 of 2020)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri
Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the Central Bureau of Investigation
(C.B.I.).
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. As per learned counsel for the
applicant,
the
present
applicant
is
languishing in jail since 15.02.2017 in Case
Crime No.52 of 2017, R.C. No.4 (S) /2017,
under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 I.P.C.,
Police
Station-C.B.I/SCB,
Lucknow,
District-Lucknow. He has submitted that
the present applicant has been falsely
implicated in this case as he has not
committed any offence as alleged in the
prosecution story.

3. This is the third bail application. The
first bail application bearing Bail Case
No.5860 (B) of 2017 was rejected on
21.01.2020 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra
Dhari Singh, who has been transferred from
this Court to another High Court. The second
bail application bearing Bail Case No.3464
(B) of 2020 was dismissed as withdrawn on
08.11.2021 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salil
Kumar Rai, who is sitting at Allahabad.

4. Since Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra
Dhari Singh has been transferred to another
High Court and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salil
Kumar Rai is sitting at Allahabad, therefore,
in view of the order of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice dated 13.11.2018 the present bail
application has been listed before the regular
Court.

5. At the very outset, Sri Atul Verma,
learned counsel for the applicant has
submitted that he is cautious about the legal
position that he cannot take any fresh ground
to argue the third bail application which could
have been taken at the time of rejection of
first or second bail applications.

6. Sri Verma has submitted that he is
only pressing this bail application on the
ground that the present applicant is in jail
since 15.02.2017 and out of total 101
prosecution witnesses only 25 prosecution
witnesses have been examined. Therefore,
there is no possibility to conclude the trial in
near future, so the present applicant may be
enlarged on bail. He has further submitted
that after rejection of first bail application on
merits on 21.01.2020 the bail of the other coaccused persons, namely Aman Singh and
Faisal, who have been implicated invoking
the provisions of Section 120-B I.P.C. in a
same manner the present applicant has been
implicated invoking Section 120-B I.P.C.,
inasmuch as the present applicant has not
been attributed the role of main assailant.
Even the present applicant was not present on
the spot, however, co-accused persons,
namely, Aman Singh and Faisal have been
attributed the role that they were on
Motorbike near the place where incident in
question has taken place and the Motorbike
which was being used at that point of time by
the co-accused was of the present applicant.

7. Sri Verma has also submitted that
however before rejection of first bail
application of the present applicant on
21.01.2020 the bail of one co-accused, Ajay
Patel who was also implicated invoking
Section 120-B I.P.C., has been granted bail
on 07.11.2019 but he shall not take such
ground for the reason that such ground was
available to the present applicant at the
time
of
rejection
of
his
first
bail
application. However, the fact remains that
so far as the implication of co-accused
persons, namely, Ajay Patel, Aman Singh
and Faisal is concerned, all accused persons
have been implicated invoking Section
120-B I.P.C., therefore on that score, the
present applicant is having parity with all
the co-accused persons. Hence, on the
aforesaid ground the present applicant may
be enlarged on bail.

8. On the other hand, Sri Anurag
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
5 All. Vivek Verma Vs. The U.O.I.
167
C.B.I. has submitted that he has provided
copy of the counter affidavit to the learned
counsel for the applicant, however, he
could not file the hard copy thereof
whereas copy of the said counter affidavit
has been shown to the Court for perusal.

9. Therefore, Sri Singh is directed to
file and upload the counter affidavit
forthwith and as soon as the said counter
affidavit is filed and uploaded, the same
shall be processed by the office at the
earliest. Even though I am deciding the
present bail application on the basis of
material available on record but for the
purposes of record of the bail application,
the same shall be filed and uploaded in
view of the aforesaid order.

10. In view of the above, the question
before this court for consideration is as to
whether after rejection of bail application
of any accused person, the other co-accused
persons having similar role or lesser role if
granted bail, can be considered as a new
ground for considering the subsequent bail
application. This question has been cropped
up before the Division Bench of this Court
in re: Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of
U.P., reported in 1993 Cri.LJ 938, and the
Division Bench has formulated the question
in para-1 of the judgement, which reads as
under:-

"1. In the third bail application
moved by the petitioner for bail in case
Crime No. 53 of 1989 under Section 302,
IPC of P.S. Ganj, district Rampur Hon'ble
N.L. Ganguli, J. has referred the following
question to a larger Bench for an
authoritative pronouncement:--

Whether an accused is entitled to
be released on bail on the ground of parity
by moving a second or third bail
application in a circumstance that at a later
date a co-accused of the same criminal
case with a similar role was granted bail by
the another Hon'ble Judge before whom
without disclosing the fact that the bail
application of another co- accused with
similar role had already been rejected, by
another Bench, bail was granted."

11. While considering the aforesaid
question, the Division Bench has observed
in paras-53 & 58 of the case in re: Nanha
(supra) as under:-

"53. There are large number of
cases of this Court in which the question of
parity in the matters of bail has been
considered earlier and the weight of
judicial authority is in favour of the
principle of parity being followed. In the
case of Hadi v. State, 1986 Allahabad
Criminal Cases 390 Hon'ble Parmeshwari
Dayal, J. bailed out the accused on the
ground that co-accused had been bailed out
earlier. In another case of Sanwal Das
Gupta v. State of U.P., 1986 Allahabad
Criminal Cases 79, D.N. Jha, J. observed
that where bail was granted to a coaccused then even the Magistrate can
admit co-accused to maintain parity. In the
case of Ram Roop Vs. State of U.P. 1987
Criminal Rulings 30, this Court observed
that a co-accused having similar role
having been granted bail another coaccused should also be granted bail. In the
case of Ali Hussain v. State of U.P., 1990
U.P. Criminal Rulings 93, Hon'ble S.K.
Dhaon, J. placed reliance on the Supreme
Court's case of Kallu (supra) and granted
bail on the ground of parity. In a
unreported decision of this Court in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1360
of 1987 Rai Munna v. State of U.P. Hon'ble
G.P. Mathur, J. granted bail on the ground
of parity though the Hon'ble Judge clearly
observed that he was still of the opinion
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the applicant was not entitled to bail
on merits, but, however, as his case was not
distinguishable from the case of co-accused
the bail was granted on the ground of
parity. In his judgment in Sobha Ram's case
(supra) Hon'ble V.N. Mehrotra, J. has
considered some more unreported decisions
of this Court in which bail has been
granted on the ground of parity. I
respectfully agree with the view of Hon'ble
V.N. Mehrotra, J.

58. The word 'parity' means the
state or condition being equal or on a
level; equality; equality of rank or status
(See Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
1936 Ed.). In other words it means being
placed at the same footing. All the accused
of a case always do not stand on the same
footing. While considering bail of different
accused the court has to find out whether
they stand on the same footing or not. Even
if role assigned to various accused is same
yet they may stand on different footing. The
case of Cap. Jagjeet Singh (supra) is an
illustration wherein the Supreme Court
distinguished the case of Capt. Jagjeet
Singh on the ground that he was in touch
with foreign agency and leaking out
secrets. The Supreme Court in the case of
Gur Charan Singh v. Delhi Administration,
AIR 1978 SC 179 : (1978 Cri LJ 129) laid
down that the considerations for grant of
bail are inter alia the position and status of
the accused with reference to the victim and
the witnesses; likelihood of the accused;
fleeing from justice; of repeating offence; of
jeopardising his own life, being faced with
grim prospect of possible conviction in the
case; of tampering with witnesses; and the
like. These are additional factors which are
to be judged in the case of individual
accused and it may make the cases of
different accused distinguishable from each
accused. At the same time if there is no real
distinction between the individual case of
accused the principle of parity comes into
play and if bail is granted to one accused it
should also be granted to the other accused
whose case stands on identical footing."

12. While answering the aforesaid
question, the Division Bench has opined in
para-61 of the case in re: Nanha (supra) as
under:-

"61. My answer to the points
referred to is that if on examination of a
given case it transpires that the case of the
applicant before court is identical, similar
to the accused, on facts and circumstances
who has been bailed out, then the
desirability of consistency will require that
such an accused should also be released on
bail. (Exceptional cases as discussed above
apart). As regards the second part of the
question, answer is that it is not at all
necessary for an accused to state in his bail
application that the bail application of a
co-accused has been rejected previously."

13. So as to demonstrate the role of
the present applicant, the attention has been
drawn
by
Sri
Verma
towards
the
prosecution story wherein the present
applicant has been attributed the role of
providing the Motorbike to the accused
persons who have killed the victim.

14. Sri Verma has further submitted that
from the statement of all 25 prosecution
witnesses who have been examined and
cross-examined, none of them have alleged
anything against the present applicant to the
effect
that
the
present
applicant
has
committed the crime in question or he was
present on the spot. As a matter of fact, the
present
applicant
has
been
implicated
invoking the provisions of Section 120-B
I.P.C. in a same manner as the other coaccused, namely, Ajay Patel, Aman Singh and
5 All. Vivek Verma Vs. The U.O.I.
169
Faisal have been implicated. Even as per the
prosecution, the Aman Singh and Faisal were
on the Motorbike near the place of incident
putting the Helmet on their head but the
present applicant was not even present at the
place of incident. Therefore, the case of the
present applicant is on better footing than the
case of other co-accused persons who have
been granted bail. Further, Aman Singh and
Faisal have been granted bail by this Court on
29.10.2021 and 15.12.2021, subsequent to
rejection of first bail application of the
present applicant on 21.01.2020. Therefore,
the case of the present applicant may be
considered in the light of the decision
rendered in re: Nanha (supra).

15. On the basis of aforesaid
contention, Sri Verma has submitted that the
present applicant may be enlarged on bail and
he has given undertaking on his behalf that he
shall co-operate with the trial proceedings,
shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall
not influence any of the witnesses.

16. Sri Verma has submitted with
vehemence that the present applicant is
having no criminal history of any kind
whatsoever and this fact has not been
controverted anyway in the counter affidavit.

17. Per contra, Sri Anurag Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by
submitting that since the first bail application
has been rejected and the applicant has got
his second bail application dismissed as not
pressed on 08.11.2021, therefore, the grounds
so taken by Sri Atul Verma as a new ground
may not be considered as a new ground so
the present bail application may be rejected.

18. However, on being confronted on
the point at to whether co-accused persons
Ajay Patel, Aman Singh and Faisal have been
implicated invoking the provisions of Section
120-B I.P.C. in a same manner as the present
applicant has been implicated, Sri Singh has
submitted that those co-accused persons have
been implicated invoking the provisions of
Section 120-B I.P.C.

19. On being further confronted as to
whether the present applicant was present at
the place of incident in a same manner as the
co-accused persons, Aman Singh and Faisal,
were present putting on Helmet while driving
the Motorbike, Sri Singh has submitted that
on the basis of material available on record
the present applicant was not present at the
place of incident, however, he was actually
involved as a conspirator.

20. So far as the criminal history of the
present applicant is concerned, Sri Singh has
submitted that the prosecution/ C.B.I. could
not lay his hands on any of the criminal
antecedent of the present applicant.

21. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available on
record.

22. Without entering into merits of the
issue, considering the fact that after rejection
of the first bail application on merits on
21.01.2020, co-accused persons Aman Singh
and Faisal have been granted bail on
29.10.2021 and 15.11.2021. Both the coaccused persons have been implicated
invoking the provisions of Section 120-B
I.P.C. in a same manner as the present
applicant has been implicated. As per the
prosecution story, Aman Singh and Faisal
were present on the spot on their Motorbikes
putting the Helmet on their head whereas the
present applicant was not present at the place
of incident. The Motorbike of the present
applicant has allegedly been utilized by the
accused persons.
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. Notably, out of 101 prosecution
witnesses, only 25 prosecution witnesses
have been examined by now, therefore,
there is no possibility to conclude the trial
in
near
future
and
the
period
of
incarceration of the present applicant which
is more than five years and two months
may be considered in view of the dictum of
Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A.
Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme
Court 712. Para-16 of the judgment is
being reproduced here-in-below:-

"This Court has clarified in
numerous
judgments
that
the
liberty
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution
would cover within its protective ambit not
only due procedure and fairness but also
access to justice and a speedy trial. In
Supreme
Court
Legal
Aid
Committee
Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union
of India, it was held that undertrials cannot
indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally,
no
person
ought
to
suffer
adverse
consequences of his acts unless the same is
established before a neutral arbiter. However,
owing to the practicalities of real life where
to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate
the risk to society in case a potential criminal
is left at large pending trial, Courts are
tasked with deciding whether an individual
ought to be released pending trial or not.
Once it is obvious that a timely trial would
not be possible and the accused has suffered
incarceration for a significant period of time,
Courts would ordinarily be obligated to
enlarge them on bail."

24. The Apex Court in the case in re:
Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation passed in
Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising
out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of 2020) has
observed as under:-

"On consideration of the matter,
we are of the view that pending the trial we
cannot keep a person in custody for an
indefinite period of time and taking into
consideration the period of custody and
that the other accused are yet to lead
defence evidence while the appellant has
already stated he does not propose to lead
any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail
to the appellant on terms and conditions to
the satisfaction of the trial court."

25. In the aforesaid cases, the Apex
Court has held that if there is no possibility
to conclude the trial in near future and the
accused applicant is in ail for a substantial
long period then a period of incarceration
may be considered as a fresh ground.

26. Since two co-accused persons,
namely, Aman Singh and Faisal have been
granted bail subsequent to rejection of first
bail application of the present applicant
and role of those co-accused persons and
the present applicant is more or less
similar as considered above, rather, is
having lesser gravity, therefore, in view of
the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court rendered in re: Nanha (supra),
wherein the Division Bench of this Court
has considered various decisions of Apex
Court and the case of the present applicant
is squarely covered from that judgment, so
the benefit of that judgment may be
extended to the present applicant.

27. It is made clear that if after
releasing from jail after getting bail the
present applicant misuses the liberty of
bail or influence any witnesses or
evidences, the prosecution may file an
appropriate application for cancellation
of bail which may be considered at the
earliest.
5 All. Roop Singh Yadav Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Lucknow
171

28. In view of the above, the present
application for bail is allowed.

29. Let the applicant-Vivek Verma, be
released on bail in the aforesaid case crime
number on his furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned with
the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain
present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed
against him under Section 229-A of the
Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses
the liberty of bail during trial and in order
to secure his presence proclamation under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the
applicant fail to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then,
the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under
Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,
(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall not leave
the country without prior permission of the
Court.

30. Before parting with, it is expected
that the trial shall be concluded with
expedition in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Further, the learned trial court may take all
coercive measures as per law if either of
the parties do not co-operate in the trial
properly.
----------
(2022)05ILR A171
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1831 of 2022

Roop Singh Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement Lucknow
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Purnendu Chakravarty, Anuuj Taandon

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.S.G., Shiv P. Shukla

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 439- Bail- Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act)- Sections
3⁄4- The matter pertains to a large scam of
Rs. 1500 crores and it was an admitted
fact that the applicant was the then
Executive Engineer in the department and
it was his responsibility to deposit the said
"centage charges"- The applicant has
clearly misused the power entrusted to
him and he does not deserve any leniency.

Where the matter pertains to corruption
involving a huge amount by the accused who
misused his official position for embezzlement of
public money and money laundering, then no