Vipin Kumar vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Vipin Kumar. The Court found the submissions made by the applicant's counsel to be prima facie appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail. While acknowledging the nature of the offence and the period of incarceration, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a fit case for bail. The Court explicitly stated that the observations made in granting bail would not affect the trial judge's independent opinion based on witness testimony. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with several conditions imposed to ensure his presence during trial, prevent adjournment abuse, and expedite the conclusion of the trial within one year. Additional conditions were imposed due to the extraordinary circumstances of the bail application, including the execution of a personal bond without sureties until normal court functioning is restored.

Facts

The applicant, Vipin Kumar, sought enlargement on bail during trial in case crime no. 27 of 2019, under Sections 60(A) of the Excise Act and Sections 304, 328, 272, 273, 120-B IPC, P.S. Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur. This was his second bail application, with the first having been rejected. The case involves the distribution of hooch (spurious liquor) causing numerous deaths in Haridwar and Saharanpur. The applicant's wife is a proprietor of Shree Enterprises, dealing in methanol. The firm purchased methanol and sold it to another enterprise, from where it was allegedly distributed. The applicant's counsel argued that this was a commercial transaction, the firm was GST registered, and the only evidence was the statement of a co-accused, Arjun, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The applicant claimed parity with co-accused granted bail and stated he had been incarcerated since February 14, 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who have been granted bail, considering the nature of the offence and the evidence on record? (Question of law and fact) Arguments for the Applicant: The applicant's counsel argued that on the principle of parity, the applicant should be enlarged on bail, citing instances where co-accused, including Amit Kumar Gupta, were granted bail. They emphasized that the applicant's firm was registered under GST, indicating a commercial transaction, and that the sole evidence against the applicant was the statement of co-accused Arjun recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. They further argued that there was no independent witness implicating the applicant and that the applicant had been in jail since February 14, 2019. Arguments for the State (Revenue): The learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the facts and legal submissions presented by the applicant's counsel.