High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23418 of 2022 Applicant :- Ramendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ayyaz Khan,Manoj Singh,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Legal Reasoning
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. Let the applicant Kurban involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned." Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Ramendra, who is involved in aforementioned Case Crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) 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. (ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE 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 FAIL 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 IPC. (iv) 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. (v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 23.11.2022 Abhishek Digitally signed by ABHISHEK AGRAHARI Date: 2022.11.23 16:11:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Sri Manoj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Ramendra seeking his bail in connection with Case Crime No. 227 of 2016, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 376D IPC, Police Station Kairana, District Shami. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the first information report was lodged under Section 364 IPC by the informant to the effect that his wife is missing who had gone to the market to purchase some items for the purpose of marriage of their daughter and the report was lodged against some unknown persons. After the dead body was found and after investigation, the accused Kurban was taken into custody and in his statement he had taken the name of the applicant herein along with other persons. It is submitted that accused Kurban had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.1.2017 after considering the entire background of the case and thereafter co-accused Mohsin was also granted bail by this Court vide order dated 2.3.2017. Submission, therefore, is that the applicant is claiming parity. That apart, by drawing attention to the statements of PW-1 to PW-9, it is submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the prosecution case. Submission, therefore, is that the applicant herein is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is however submitted that the applicant is innocent with no previous criminal history and is in jail since 2.3.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. One of the order dated 13.1.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1731 of 2017 is quoted as under: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sandeep Kumar Gupta, learned A. G. A. for the State. Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 227 of 2016, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 376D I.P.C., P.S. Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar. I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order. The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has not been named in the FIR which was lodged on 7.4.2016 i.e. after three days of incident dated 4.4.2016, however, in the statement of first informant which was recorded on 7.4.2016 itself the applicant has been named therein with the averments that his brother-in-law has informed him that he had seen the applicant in the company of the deceased. The contention is that if this was correct along with the version said to be given by the daughter of the deceased that mother was receiving telephone calls from Kurban, then why was the applicant not named in the FIR itself. The further contention is that thereafter on 8.4.2016 two other witnesses have been introduced, namely, Samaydeen and Abbas. It is contended that the statement of Samaydeen shows that he has disclosed to the effect that the deceased was seen in the company of Mohsin and Sangat Dheevar and with regard to the present applicant it is mentioned that the applicant was also seen separately along with Ramendra and Ankush coming from Yamuna bridge. Similarly is the statement of Abbas. Thus, it has been further contended that in view of the statements of aforesaid two witnesses also, it is clear that the deceased was seen in the company of Mohsin and Sangat Dheevar and not in the company of the applicant. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant having no previous criminal history is in jail since 14.4.2016 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.