High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56574 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7385 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ram Pravesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Despite name of Sri Manish Yadav being printed in the cause list, there is no vakalatnama on the record. Office to trace it out and place it on the record and make a note about it in the order sheet. 4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Mahendra Pratap Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.77 of 2024, under Section 302 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Linepar, District- Firozabad. 5. A First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 10.3.2024 by Shyamveer Singh against Somraj, Munnalal, Deepak, Shalya alleging therein that on 09.03.2024 Somraj from his mobile called his son Pushpendra on his mobile and called him for settlement of a previous case which was registered, on which the first informant, Rajesh (his son-in-law) went to Somraj where Somraj in the case registered against the informant and his sons, demanded Rs.18 lakh for settlement and threatened them that if the matter is not settled then they would face its consequences. Since the demand was of huge amount the matter could not be settled. But Somraj and his family members again called Pushpendra through phone, on which Pushpendra went alone to the house of Somraj. Pushpendra then on 09.3.2024 at about 08.04 p.m. called his son-in-law and told him that he is at the house of Somraj where the accused persons are present and discussions are going on for settlement of the said matter but till night Pushpendra did not come back on which the informant and his family members searched him. Pushpendra on the same date i.e. 09.3.2024 in the evening had told his son-in-law that he has settled the dispute in Rs.18 lakh. The accused persons were with him and have agreed to it but he did not return back in the night. He was then searched but could not be traced. In the morning son-in-law of the informant again called on the mobile phone of Pushpendra at about 08.00 a.m. which was answered by some person of Police Station Linepar who told him that the said person whose phone is being answered, is dead. Then the informant reached the said police station and inquired about it. Report be lodged and action be taken. 6. Post mortem examination of Pushpendra was conducted in which doctor has found an incised wound and grazed abrasion and cause of death was opined as due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and implication of the applicant in the present matter has surfaced during investigation along with co-accused Raja Yadav. It is submitted that charge sheet dated 08.6.2024 has been submitted against the applicant and the co-accused Raja Yadav whereas the four accused named in the F.I.R. have been exonerated. It is submitted that in the present matter there is no eye witness to the murder. It is further submitted that implication of the applicant in the matter is on the basis of a C.C.T.V. footage in which it is seen that the applicant and the co- accused Raja Yadav were going on a motorcycle and the deceased was also with them. It is submitted that during investigation after arrest of the applicant, police has shown recovery of a surgical blade which is a false and planted recovery and there is no independent witness to the said recovery, para-35 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court for the same. It is submitted that co-accused Raja Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 16.1.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25874 of 2024, copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure no. 21 (page nos.221 to 224) of the affidavit in support of this bail application. While placing para-57 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant is shown to be involved in 02 cases but in both the said cases, he has been granted bail by the concerned courts, the orders granting bail have been annexed as annexure no. 20 to the affidavit. It is submitted that there is no direct and credible evidence against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 18.3.2024. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and submitted that implication of the applicant in the present case has surfaced during investigation in which he and co-accused Raja Yadav were found to be involved and thus have been made accused in the present case whereas 04 accused persons named in the F.I.R. were found to be falsely implicated and thus were exonerated. It is submitted that recovery of a surgical blade on the pointing out of the applicant and the injury received by the deceased would go to show that the same was used as an article for assault. Learned counsels could not dispute the fact that co- accused Raja Yadav has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsels further could not dispute the averment made in para-57 of the affidavit in support of bail application with regard to disclosure and explanation of criminal antecedents of the applicant. 9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Implication of the applicant in the present case has surfaced during investigation. All the 04 named accused persons in the F.I.R. have been exonerated. The applicant and the co-accused Raja Yadav were made accused during investigation. Co-accused Raja Yadav has been granted bail. Recovery of a surgical blade is uncorroborated which is seriously disputed. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Mahendra Pratap Singh, 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. 12. 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. 13. The bail application is allowed.
Decision
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Naresh Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad