High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42470 of 2021 Applicant :- Lal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Gyan Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Lal Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 84 of 2020, under Sections 323, 304, 120B I.P.C. registered at P.S. Agauta, District Bulandshahar. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that initially an N.C.R. was lodged by Tinkoo Sharma who is also the first informant of the present case, under Section 323 I.P.C. against unknown person on 22.7.2020 for an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 15.7.2020. Subsequently an F.I.R. under Sections 323, 304 I.P.C. was lodged on 25.7.2020 which was against unknown persons. Later on the statement of the first informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 25.7.2020 but he has not named any accused person therein. Thereafter, on 27.7.2020 which is after two days of lodging of the F.I.R. police informer informs the Investigating Officer that he has come to know about the involvement of the applicant on the basis of which he has been arrested and a knife is alleged to have been recovered from the pointing out of the applicant. Subsequently on 31.7.2020 second statement of the first informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he names the applicant and one Kalwa as accused. It is argued that the same is a handy work of the police just in order to show good work and there is no credible evidence against the applicant except for the said statements. It is argued that in so far as the recovery knife is concerned, the same is not corroborative with the incident as being used in the incident. It is further argued that even otherwise N.C.R. was lodged after about 7 days of the alleged incident and the present F.I.R. was lodged after 09 days of the incident for which there is no plausible explanation regarding delay. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-30 of the affidavit and is in jail since 1.8.2020. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is neither named in the N.C.R. nor in the F.I.R. The N.C.R. has been lodged after 7 days of the incident whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged after 09 days of the incident. Name of the applicant for the first time comes during investigation through police informer and the first informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not name the applicant as an accused. Subsequently, after three days of arrest of the applicant, the first informant in his second statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. names the applicant as an accused. 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. Let the applicant- Lal 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. 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. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 24.3.2022 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.24 17:43:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad