Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ajmal And Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 798 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7279 (5 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




                     Criminal Misc. Recall Application No.  14488  of 2006


Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.   798  of      2006

Rafiq Ahmad                        ...                       ..                       ...                     Applicant


1. Azmal

2. Mahboob

      3.State of U.P.                                            ...                     ...                   Opp. Party


Hon. G.P. Srivastva, J.

       This is an application for recalling the order dated 13.1.06 passed by this Court in bail application No. 798/06 Azmal and another Vs. State of U.P.

Heard Sri S.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri I.M. Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.

The ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicant for recalling the impugned order is that the application of co-accused Mazid and Manna who were assigned the role of firing was rejected by this Court. The second bail application of co-accused Mazid was also rejected by this Court therefore it was argued that the accused Azmal and Mahboob who have been granted bail by this Court do not deserve bail and their bail application was also liable to be rejected.

It is settled law that there is no parity of rejection. Each case is decided on its own merit. The bail application of accused Azmal and Mahboob was decided on merit and it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the bail application of co-accused persons stand rejected.

Moreover it was not a duty of the accused to take the plea that the bail application of co-accused was rejected and there is no allegation of any type of fraud committed by the accused persons on the Court in order to obtain the bail order. There is nothing that they are misusing the liberty of the bail. There is no question to recall the bail order. The application is therefore rejected.

Dt. 5.4.06.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.