The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused while also asking the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, to explain why he denied bail to the applicant but later granted bail to a co-accused with a similar role.

Applicant’s Case:

The order was passed by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh in the bail application of Mohammed Rafiq.

The applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, he was accused of causing only one knife injury to one of the injured persons, Noshad. Although Noshad had suffered several injuries, only one incised wound was allegedly caused by the applicant. It was also submitted that the medical reports showed that all the injuries were simple in nature.

Parity Plea:

The defence further submitted that the applicant had no criminal history and had been in judicial custody since April 2026. It also argued that he should be granted bail on the ground of parity because co-accused Anshu, who was accused of causing a similar knife injury to another injured person, Deepak, had already been granted bail by the trial court.

Opposing the bail plea, the State argued that there was sufficient material to show the applicant’s involvement in the offence and, therefore, he should not be released on bail.

Why Bail Was Granted:

After considering the arguments of both sides, the medical records, the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s time in custody, and the fact that he had no criminal history, the High Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

The Court noted that the applicant was accused of giving only one knife blow on the back of Noshad’s shoulder and that the injury was neither grievous nor life-threatening. It also noted that co-accused Anshu, who had been assigned a very similar role, had already been granted bail.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court observed:

“Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of accusations, the evidence brought on record, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, the absence of any criminal antecedents, the injury sustained by the injured Noshad which is simple in nature and the applicant is stated to have caused a single blow on the back of the shoulder of the injured, the other co-accused Anshu, having identical role of causing injury to another injured Deepak, has been granted bail by the learned court concerned, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.”

Disparity in Bail Orders:

While examining the record, the High Court found that the applicant’s bail application had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge in May, but the same judge granted bail to co-accused Anshu in June.

Need for Consistency:

The Court observed:

“Since judicial consistency and uniform application of legal principles are matters of institutional importance, it is considered appropriate to seek explanation from the concerned court/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad, in respect of disparity committed by him while disposing bail application of aforesaid accused.”

Explanation Sought:

The Court directed:

“Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad, is directed to furnish a detailed explanation, through Registrar General of this Court, within seven days from the receipt of this communication, indicating the distinguishing facts, circumstances, or legal consideration which weighed with the court in denying bail to the applicant-accused herein while granting bail to the similarly placed co-accused Anshu.”

The court also stated that:

“The explanation may specifically indicate the material factors which, in the considered opinion of the learned court, justified differential treatment in the orders passed.”

Administrative Purpose:

The High Court further clarified that, “this communication/order is being issued for administrative purposes and, right now, shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the judicial orders concerned’’.

Consequently, the Registrar (compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the officer concerned through the District Judge, Ghaziabad, by the fastest mode within three days.

The case is to be put up on 13.07.2026 before the court alongwith the explanation of the learned court concerned.

Case Details:Mohammad Rafiq @ Rafiqul Islam Vs State of UP