Citation : 2002 Local Law (CG) 115
the Chhattisgarh High Court, has allowed bail to an accused in a 2002 Durg violent incident after finding that parity with the counter case warranted the relief. The order, delivered after hearing both counsel, concerns an event on September 1, 2002, during the Dahiloot occasion in Durg in which three people were injured. The petitioning accused is Ashish Pateliya, charged in Crime No. 630/2002, while a related counter case, Crime No. 631/2002, names Lalli as complainant and involves accused who had already been granted bail by the trial court.
The judge’s note of facts explains that in the single incident Naresh Munda, the petitioner Ashish, and Lalli sustained injuries. Deepak Kumar is the complainant in Crime No. 630/2002 and Lalli is the complainant in Crime No. 631/2002. Because the cases arise from the same incident, and because accused in the counter case had been released on bail, the petitioner’s counsel urged the High Court to apply established precedent and grant similar treatment to Ashish. Counsel relied on two Madhya Pradesh High Court decisions, Bachhu v. State of M.P. (1988) and Wail Khan v. State of M.P. (1996), which the judge noted had earlier guided this court’s disposition of comparable petitions.
Applying that reasoning, the court held that where incidents are cross cases from the same occurrence, parity between accused can justify equal relief. With two persons already released on bail in Crime No. 631/2002, the court found it appropriate to extend the same consideration to the petitioner in Crime No. 630/2002. Accordingly, Ashish Pateliya was directed to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned magistrate, and to appear as required before the trial court.
The order makes clear that procedural equality in cross cases will be a factor courts may consider when deciding bail applications, particularly where the accused on both sides suffered injuries in a single incident. Parties were also held entitled to certified copies of the order. The judgment reaffirms that courts will look to the broader context of related prosecutions in the same factual matrix when assessing fairness and parity in bail decisions.
Case Details : M. Cr. Case No. 2514 of 2002 (B), Ashish Pateliya vs. State of Chhattisgarh (05.12.2002)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. Yashwant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. Ashok Verma, Deputy G.A.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 307; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 34
======
आपराधिक – जमानत प्रदान करना – भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (IPC) की धारा 307 सहपठित धारा 34 के अंतर्गत दंडनीय अपराध – निर्णय: वर्तमान मामले में यह विवादित नहीं था कि एक व्यक्ति एक अपराध में घायल हुआ था तथा दो व्यक्ति दूसरे अपराध में घायल हुए थे। प्रतिकारी (काउंटर) मामले में दो अभियुक्तों को पहले ही जमानत पर रिहा किया जा चुका था। अतः, वर्तमान अपराध में अभियुक्त याचिकाकर्ता भी समान राहत पाने का हकदार था। याचिका स्वीकार की गई।
