Nitin Bansal vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Nitin Bansal, considering the material on record, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the dictum of the Apex Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The primary reasoning for granting bail was the parity with the co-accused who had already been released on bail. The Court directed the applicant's release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to several conditions. These conditions included not tampering with evidence, cooperating with the trial, not indulging in criminal activity, and specific directives regarding the execution of the bond and sureties in light of the prevailing circumstances of court functioning. The issue of the merits of the case was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Nitin Bansal, sought release on bail in Case Crime No. 1132 of 2018, registered under Sections 420, 466, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132 of the CGST Act. The applicant has been in jail since June 20, 2019. The prosecution, represented by the learned AGA, opposed the bail application through written objections. The applicant's counsel argued that a co-accused, Satendra Kumar, had been granted bail by the same court on April 23, 2020, in a similar case, and therefore, the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity. The judgment does not specify the exact amount in dispute or the authority that passed the initial order being challenged, other than the registration of the FIR.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the grounds of parity, given that a co-accused has been granted bail in a similar case? 2. Whether the applicant's continued detention is justified in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and relevant Supreme Court judgments? Contentions of the Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant argued that his case is on identical footing with that of co-accused Satendra Kumar, who was granted bail by this Court on April 23, 2020. Therefore, on the principle of parity, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. The applicant also highlighted that he has been in jail since June 20, 2019. Contentions of the Revenue (State): The learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail through written objections, without specifying the grounds of opposition or any particular legal provisions or precedents relied upon in the judgment.