Sonu @ Mohd. Salim Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3697 of 2019 • Sonu @ Mohd. Salim Khan S/o Aaftab Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o Hemunagar, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Prabhari, Aarakshi Kendra Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ----Non Applicant For the Applicant :

Shri Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Non Applicant :

Shri Washim Miyan, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board 19.06.2019 1.

This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before this Court and no other bail application is pending before any other Court. 2.

Perused the case diary provided by the learned counsel for the State in connection with Crime No. 03/2019 registered at Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506B, 327, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and 25, 27 of Arms Act.

3.

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 02.01.2019 between 20:00 to 21:00 hours at Budhwari Bazar, co-accused Aabo @ Alauddin caused injuries on head, hand of complainant Sanjeev Keshri by sword, at that time co-accused Kallu, Monti, Amarjeet, Sujeet and applicant Sonu @ Mohd. Salim Khan reached there, abused complainant Sanjeev Keshri gave threatening to kill him, caused injuries on his body by club, baseball bat.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has no criminal background, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, therefore, he shall be released on bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, however, submits that two other criminal cases under IPC have been registered against the applicant.

6.

This Court has communicated the order dated 29-11-2018 passed in MCRC No. 8487/2018 (Venktesh Kanhaiya (K. Venktesh Kanhaiya -v- State of CG) to all the subordinate judicial officers of the State. The relevant paragraphs 8 and 9 of that order are extracted herebelow :- "8. In Deepak Kumar Ratre -v- State of Chhattisgarh, [2001(2) MPHT 89 (CG)]

following judicial precedent has been laid down by this Court in para 9 :- "The grant of application in favour of some of the accused should earnestly persuade a judicial officer to grant bail to the co-accused if the allegations are identical or there are no material differences in the allegations. This Court had been repeatedly saying that if the allegations are identical or almost similar then similar should be treated similarly. I fail to understand as to why a judicial officer should act arbitrarily and in such a whimsical manner in rejecting the application for grant of bail. If the three named persons were granted bail, by any other judicial officer, then so long as the said order is in existence or is not set aside by any revisional court then such order would provide a foundation in favour of the co-accused for his release. It would be hight of the judicial impropriety to say that because some Judge had granted bail to some of the co-accused, the same order would not enure to the benefit of the co-accused before any other Judge."

9.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that there is no material difference in the allegation leveled against the applicant and coaccused Kailash Kaushal. Parity demands that if allegations are identical or almost similar or case of the applicant is less severe, then similar or less severe should be treated similarly. Once a co-accused is granted bail then other co-accused whose role is similar or not more severe is also entitled for bail." 7.

The certified copy of order dated 05.05.2019 passed by the 5 th Addittional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur reveals that it was in her knowledge that co-accused Monti Khan, Aabo @ Alauddin, Amarjeet, Sujeet have been released on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court.

8.

The 5th Additional Sessions Judge has not distinguished the case of applicant is more severe than the case of co-accused who were released on bail by equal Bench of this Court. In the case in hand, the case of applicant is not more severe than the case of co-accused who have been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court. 9.

It has been repeatedly said that discretion should be judicious and not arbitrary. Parity demands that if allegations are identical or almost similar or case of the applicant is less severe, than similar or less severe should be treated similarly. The 5th Additional Sessions Judge( Ranju Raut Roy) overlooked the ratio laid down in Venktesh Kanhaiya (supra) and Deepak Kumar Ratre(supra) in correct perspective and true spirit, though it was expected from her.

10. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, application is allowed. It is ordered that if the applicant furnishes one solvent surety for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with one personal bond of the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, he be released on bail.

11. Addl. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the the District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge Parul