Bail denied due to non-compliance with deposit requirements in IPC & Prevention of Corruption Act case

The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail application of the applicant in a case involving various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court considered the comparison of liabilities and secured amounts between the applicant and a co-accused whose bail was rejected previously. Despite arguments based on physical disability and financial aspects, the court noted the applicant's refusal to deposit an additional amount as directed, leading to the rejection of the bail plea. The court emphasized the lack of substantial grounds to grant bail, citing previous court orders and the applicant's non-compliance with deposit requirements.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Bail application based on the grant of bail to a co-accused by the Apex Court.
- Comparison of liabilities and secured amounts between the applicant and co-accused.
- Argument for bail rejection based on previous court order and refusal to deposit additional amount.
- Consideration of physical disability as a factor in bail decisions.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the Allahabad High Court pertains to the second bail application of the applicant, which was based on the grant of bail to a co-accused, Pankaj Jain, by the Apex Court. The applicant's counsel argued that since Pankaj Jain had been granted bail due to specific reasons, including being physically handicapped and cooperating with the investigation, the applicant should also be granted bail. The counsel highlighted the total secured amount and the applicant's liability, emphasizing the financial aspects to support the bail application. The applicant had been in jail since 2016, and the counsel presented a detailed chart of liabilities and secured amounts to make a case for bail.

The Counsel for the CBI opposed the bail application, citing the rejection of the applicant's first bail plea on merits. The CBI argued that the liability of the applicant, as per the charge sheet, was significant, and compared it to the case of another co-accused, Pradeep Garg, whose bail application was also rejected previously. The CBI emphasized the refusal of the applicant to deposit an additional amount, as directed by the court in the previous order, as a reason for opposing the current bail application. The CBI highlighted the lack of parity between the applicant and the co-accused in terms of willingness to deposit additional amounts, which influenced the rejection of the bail plea.

The court considered the arguments presented by both sides and noted the refusal of the applicant to deposit the required additional amount, despite the comparison with the case of the co-accused. The court referred to the previous order rejecting the applicant's first bail application and concluded that no substantial grounds were presented to justify granting bail to the applicant. As a result, the bail application of the applicant in the mentioned special case involving various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act was rejected based on the arguments and submissions made during the hearing.

In the judgment, the court also highlighted the consideration of physical disability as a factor in bail decisions, as seen in the case of the co-accused Pankaj Jain. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the liabilities, secured amounts, previous court orders, and the refusal of the applicant to comply with the deposit requirements, leading to the rejection of the bail application.

---