High Court

2. Heard Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure / under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Monu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 09 of 2018, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad.

4. The facts of the matter are that a first information report of the present matter was lodged on 05.01.2018 under Sections 363, 366, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. by Sataybhan Gola against the applicant, Sonu @ Sumit, Soorajpal and Anju on the basis of an application dated 19.12.2016 filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

5. In the present matter Kumari Rinki died. The postmortem examination was conducted on 03.12.2016 in which the doctor did not find any external injury seen over her body and thus the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera after examination was found to contain Organochloro Insecticide poison.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation in the matter concluded and a final report dated 04.02.2018 was submitted in favour of Sonu @ Sumit, Monu (the applicant), Soorajpal and Anju. The informant objected to the same by filing a protest petition dated 20.01.2021. On the said protest petition vide order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad all the four accused persons were summoned for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. It is submitted that against the said order dated 08.11.2021 co-accused Sonu @ Sumit and 02 others filed a Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 43304 of 2022 (Sonu @ Sumit and 02 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) which is pending for disposal before this Court. It is submitted that the said accused namely Sonu @ Sumit, Monu, Soorajpal preferred an Application U/S 482 No. 4059 of 2024 (Sonu @ Sumit and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) challenging the order dated

30.09.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad whereby Non- bailable warrants were issued against them but it has been dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2024 by this Court. It is submitted that co-accused Surajpal and Sumit @ Sonu have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 33789 of 2024 and 41281 of 2024, the copy of the said orders are annexed as Annexure-15 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the implication of the applicant in the present case is false and without any credible evidence. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 11.02.2025.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments relating to the factual aspects of the matter.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although the first information report names the applicant and 03 others persons but after investigation a final report was submitted on which a protest petition was filed and then the applicant and co-accused persons were summoned. Co-accused Surajpal and Sumit @ Sonu have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Monu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)

2. Heard Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure / under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Monu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 09 of 2018, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad.

4. The facts of the matter are that a first information report of the present matter was lodged on 05.01.2018 under Sections 363, 366, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. by Sataybhan Gola against the applicant, Sonu @ Sumit, Soorajpal and Anju on the basis of an application dated 19.12.2016 filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

5. In the present matter Kumari Rinki died. The postmortem examination was conducted on 03.12.2016 in which the doctor did not find any external injury seen over her body and thus the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera after examination was found to contain Organochloro Insecticide poison.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation in the matter concluded and a final report dated 04.02.2018 was submitted in favour of Sonu @ Sumit, Monu (the applicant), Soorajpal and Anju. The informant objected to the same by filing a protest petition dated 20.01.2021. On the said protest petition vide order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad all the four accused persons were summoned for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. It is submitted that against the said order dated 08.11.2021 co-accused Sonu @ Sumit and 02 others filed a Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 43304 of 2022 (Sonu @ Sumit and 02 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) which is pending for disposal before this Court. It is submitted that the said accused namely Sonu @ Sumit, Monu, Soorajpal preferred an Application U/S 482 No. 4059 of 2024 (Sonu @ Sumit and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) challenging the order dated

30.09.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad whereby Non- bailable warrants were issued against them but it has been dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2024 by this Court. It is submitted that co-accused Surajpal and Sumit @ Sonu have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 33789 of 2024 and 41281 of 2024, the copy of the said orders are annexed as Annexure-15 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the implication of the applicant in the present case is false and without any credible evidence. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 11.02.2025.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments relating to the factual aspects of the matter.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although the first information report names the applicant and 03 others persons but after investigation a final report was submitted on which a protest petition was filed and then the applicant and co-accused persons were summoned. Co-accused Surajpal and Sumit @ Sonu have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Monu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)