Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35073 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3284 of 2025 Applicant :- Manish Alias Chotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Rizwan Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyanendra Kumar Mishra,Ramesh Kumar Mishra with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3318 of 2025 Applicant :- Rinu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Rizwan Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyanendra Kumar Mishra,Ramesh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Both these matters arose from the same FIR and, therefore, they are being disposed of by the common order. 2. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta and Rizwan Ahamad, learned counsels for the applicants, Sri Gyanendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307, 504, 506, 395, 397, 412, 34 IPC, Police Station- Doghat, District- Baghpat, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsels for the applicants submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against seven persons including applicants with a delay of 14 hours on the basis of general allegations and however, as per allegation, applicants and others made assault due to which, one person died and three persons sustained injuries but entire allegations levelled against the applicants are totally false and they never participated in the alleged crime. 5. They further submitted that however, bail applications of two co-accused persons Harendra and Amrish were dismissed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 14062 of 2020 and 3865 of 2020 respectivey but subsequent to their bail rejection, co-accused Amit has been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.12.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38498 of 2024 and his bail order has been annexed at page no. 265 of the paper book and on facts, case of applicants is at par with him. They further submitted that at the time of granting bail to co-accused Amit, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also took notice of the fact that bail applications of co- accused Harendra and Amrish have already been dismissed by this Court. 6. They further submitted that law is settled, all the accused should be treated equally and considering the Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, applicants should also be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity itself. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022) 10 SCC 51. 7. They further submitted that even applicants are in jail in the present matter since 24.03.2019 i.e. for last almost 6 years. They further submitted that after considering long incarceration of applicants, a report was called from the court concerned which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects till date, out of 14 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 4 witnesses could be examined and, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. He further submitted that there is no evidence, which can suggest that due to delaying tactics of the applicant, trial is being lingered on. 8. They further submitted that as applicants are in jail in the present matter for last almost 6 years, therefore, it cannot be said that their fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed. They placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case of Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 SCC Online SC 322. 9. They further submitted that applicants are not having any criminal history and, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicants should be enlarged on bail. 10. Per contra learned AGA, as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the FIR and statements of the injured witnesses, it reflects that applicants participated in the instant crime and it is a case, in which, three persons sustained injuries and one person died and all the three injured categorically stated that applicants and others committed the alleged offence. 11. They further submitted that even bail applications of similarly placed co-accused Harendra and Amrish have been dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that after rejection of bail application of co- accused Harendra and Amrish, co-accused Amit has been enlarged on bail by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and one facts, case of applicants is at par with him. 12. They further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter, applicants are in jail for last almost six years and till date, out of 14 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 4 could be examined and there is no evidence on record, which can show that due to conduct of the applicant, trial is being lingered on. 13. They further could not dispute the fact that applicants are not having any criminal history. 14. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. However, it reflects applicants are named in FIR along with four others and as per allegation, due to assault made by them, one person died and three persons sustained injuries but it reflects, only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses recording during investigation including statements of injured witnesses. 16. However, record suggests that after considering entire facts of the case, bail applications of similarly placed co-accused Harendra and Amrish have been dismissed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court but record also suggests that after rejection of their bail applications, co-accused Amit has been released on bail by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering his long incarceration of more than five and half years and from the bail granting order dated 11.12.2024, which has been annexed along with the instant bail application, it reflects that while granting bail to co-accused Amit, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also took the notice of the fact that bail applications of two co-accused Harendra and Amrish have already been dismissed. Record also suggests that case of applicants is exactly at par with co-accused Amit. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsels for the applicants, in paragraph no. 98 observed that:- "Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India." 18. Therefore, considering the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), on the ground of parity, applicants can be enlarged on bail. 19. Further, in the present matter, applicants are in jail for last almost 6 years and considering long incarceration, a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects that till date, out of 14 witnesses of the charge sheet only 4 could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and from the report of the court concerned, it could not be reflected that applicants are responsible for delay in trial. 20. Further, right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail and considering the fact that applicants are in jail in the present matter for last almost 6 years, it cannot be said that their fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed. [see: Tapas Kumar Palit(supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsels for the applicants]. 21. Further, applicants are not having any previous criminal history. 22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 23. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 24. Let the applicants- Manish Alias Chotu, Rinu and Sumit @ Prince be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 25. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicants. 26. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad