Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Alias Vikky Sharma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2019
-( 1 )- MCRC No. 23809/2019
Neeraj @ Vikky Sharma vs. State of MP
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
Misc. Cri. Case No. 23809/2019
Neeraj @ Vikky Sharma ..... APPLICANT
Versus
State of MP ..... NON-APPLICANT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri R.K.Sharma, learned senior counsel with Shri
V.K.Agarwal, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitiz Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-
Applicant/State.
Shri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting : Yes
Law laid down Relevant paras
In the light of the judgment in
Nanha vs. State of UP [1993 Cri.L.J.
938], it is clear that while deciding
bail application on the ground of
parity, following factors are relevant
for consideration:
(i) Parity cannot be the sole ground
-( 2 )- MCRC No. 23809/2019
Neeraj @ Vikky Sharma vs. State of MP
for granting bail even at the stage of
second or third or subsequent bail
applications.
(ii) More materials placed before
the Court with regard to the case,
further developments in the
investigation and other reasoned
considerations may be considered as
sufficient grounds for consideration. Para 7
(iii) The Court 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 reason, if the same
has been passed in flagrant violation
of well settled principles and ignoring
the relevant facts essential for grant of
bail.
(iv) Failure of justice may be
occasioned if bail is granted to an
accused on the basis of parity with
another co-accused whose bail order
does not contain any reason.
(v) If an order granting bail to co-
accused is not supported by reasons,
the same cannot form the basis of
granting bail to an accused on the
ground of parity.
ORDER
(Passed on 25th June, 2019) This first bail application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of applicant in relation to Crime No.90/2019 registered at Police Station -( 3 )- MCRC No. 23809/2019 Neeraj @ Vikky Sharma vs. State of MP Janakganj, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 34 and 498(A) of IPC.
2. As per prosecution story, marriage of deceased Preeti Sharma with the present applicant was solemnized on 9.5.2015 and after marriage, in-laws of Preeti Sharma used to demand four wheeler and on 28.1.2019, Preeti Sharma committed suicide by hanging.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased. It is further submitted that the applicant is having a daughter aged two and a half years, who is living with him. It is also contended that omnibus and vague allegations have been levelled against the applicant. Co- accused Ku. Boby @ Sheetal and Ramesh Sharma @ Ramsingh Sharma have been granted anticipatory bail by High Court vide order dated 5.3.2019 and 26.4.2019 respectively, while other two co-accused persons viz., Bittu @ Nokhil sharma and Smt. Chandni have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court itself vide order dated 26.3.2019 and 2.5.2019 respectively and the case of the applicant is identical to the case of above mentioned co- accused persons. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicant that on behalf of complainant, affidavit has been filed -( 4 )- MCRC No. 23809/2019 Neeraj @ Vikky Sharma vs. State of MP by father, mother and sister-in-law of the deceased, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the deceased was under depression hence she committed suicide. Under these circumstances, prays for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that consideration of affidavit at the time of considering bail is not appropriate, it entirely reflects that some inducement has been made with the prosecution witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard and perused the case diary.
6. In Nanha vs. State of UP [1993 Cri.L.J. 938], the issue with regard to grant of bail on the basis of parity has been elaborately discussed, wherein it is observed as under:
"Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications when the bail applications of the co-accused whose bail application had been earlier rejected are allowed and co-accused is released on bail.
The Court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigation or otherwise and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on -( 5 )- MCRC No. 23809/2019 Neeraj @ Vikky Sharma vs. State of MP bail."
7. In the light of the above annunciation of law, it is clear that while deciding bail application on the ground of parity, following factors are relevant for consideration:
(i) Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications.
(ii) More materials placed before the Court with regard to the case, further developments in the investigation and other reasoned considerations may be considered as sufficient grounds for consideration.
(iii) The Court 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 reason, if the same has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principles and ignoring the relevant facts essential for grant of bail.
(iv) Failure of justice may be occasioned if bail is granted to an accused on the basis of parity with another co-accused whose bail order does not contain any reason.
(v) If an order granting bail to co-accused is not supported by reasons, the same cannot form the basis of granting bail to an accused on the ground of parity.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the gravity of offence and on the basis of allegations and material available on record, as the applicant is husband and main accused of this case, without commenting on the merits of the -( 6 )- MCRC No. 23809/2019 Neeraj @ Vikky Sharma vs. State of MP case, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate at this stage to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
9. Consequently, the application is dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information and a copy of the order be given to the learned Public Prosecutor with a direction to keep the same in the concerned case diary.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
vv Judge
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2019.06.27
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
13:00:56
-07'00'