Concept of Parity: the court, emphasizing this concept, found that the appellant was entitled to be extended on bail, particularly because co-accused with similar positions had been granted bail.
Title: Mufti Qazi Jahangir Alam Qasmi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 2869 of 2023
Decided on: 22.12.2023
Coram: Rajan Roy, J. and Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Introduction
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, granted Mufti Qazi Jahangir Alam Qasmi’s criminal appeal contesting the rejection of his second bail application. The appellant was charged in a case involving illicit religious conversion. The court evaluated the parity issue, noting that other co-accused, including those with similar positions, had been granted bail by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The court overturned the ruling rejecting the second bail application and ordered the appellant’s release on bail, subject to the NIA Court’s strict conditions. The requirements included contact and travel restrictions, as well as regular appearances before the investigative agency and trial court. The judgment was delivered on December 22, 2023, by Hon’ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I and Hon’ble Rajan Roy, JJ.
Facts of the case
In Mufti Qazi Jahangir Alam Qasmi vs. State Of U.P., the appellant, Mufti Qazi Jahangir Alam Qasmi, filed a Criminal Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the Special Judge (NIA/ATS), Lucknow’s ruling dated 04.10.2023. The appellant was accused in Sessions Trial No.13751 of 2021, which was linked to Case Crime No.09 of 2021, and involved multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The appeal was filed against the Trial Court’s denial of the appellant’s second bail application, notwithstanding the appellant’s claim of parity with co-accused who were granted release by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Following the rejection of the appellant’s initial bail application, other co-accused with similar roles had been granted release, some even by the Supreme Court, according to the appellant’s attorney. In accepting the appeal, the High Court emphasized the concept of parity, holding that the Trial Court should have taken into account the fact that the co-accused had previously been granted bail. The appellant was later freed on bail, with the NIA Court imposing certain terms, including collaboration with the Investigating Agency and the trial, non-communication with witnesses, and limits on leaving the nation or state without authorization.
This case demonstrates the legal remedies accessible under the National Investigation Agency Act, as well as the importance of the concept of parity in bail petitions. The court saw the following bail approvals to co-accused as a reasonable reason for the appellant to file a second bail application, resulting in his release on bail.
Court’s observation and analysis
The main issue presented by the appellant’s lawyer was the granting of bail to many co-accused, some by the High Court and others by the Supreme Court. According to the appellant, this formed a basis for his second bail application based on the concept of parity. The Court cited a similar decision in Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2023; Mhod. Umar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., when bail was granted to a co-accused after the appellant’s first bail plea was denied. The Court remarked that the Trial Court’s refusal of the second bail application did not take into account the fact that the co-accused had been granted bail by higher courts following the appellant’s original rejection. The Court, emphasizing the concept of parity, found that the appellant was entitled to be extended on bail, particularly because co-accused with similar positions had been granted bail.
The Court imposed particular bail terms on the appellant, including limits on communication with witnesses, surrender of passport, regular reporting to the Investigating Officer, and cooperation with the Investigating Agency and throughout the trial. The Court further said that the remarks made in the order would have no bearing on the trial procedures.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari
