High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50581 of 2021
Legal Reasoning
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that; (a) applicant is cousin of the first informant; (b) main role of causing injury has been assigned to Geeta Devi, Pinki and Arjun; (c) no role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant. It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Mohit @ Shiva be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 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 in accordance with law. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 26.4.2022 aks Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.04 17:12:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Applicant :- Mohit @ Shiva Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kedar Nath Mishra,Ashwini Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Heard Shri Kedar Nath Mishra and Sri Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Mohit @ Shiva under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 882 of 2020 for offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, registered Police Station Kankar Kheda District Meerut during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut vide order dated 25.10.2021. Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 14.09.2020 at 20;55 hours has been lodged against the applicant and four named persons by Vineet Kumar, son of the deceased Munni Devi stating therein that on 14.09.2020 at 8.30 am., his mother went to the house of co-accused Geeta Devi (In-laws of the first informant) where Geeta Devi(mother-in- law), Pinki (wife of informant), Arjun (brother-in-law), Ravi @Bholu (brother-in-law) have committed marpeet and lit fire his mother after pouring kerosene as a result of which his mother received 65% burn injuries. After which, she was admitted to Pyarelal Hospital, Meerut in critical condition. After lodging the first information report, dying declaration of the deceased Munni Devi has been recorded by Additional city Magistrate, Ist, on 14.09.2020 at 7;24 P.M. in P.L. Sharma District Hospital, Meerut. Inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.09.2020 at 11;15 hours at the house of first informant at Village Bharala. Post morterm of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.09.2020 at 2.30 P.M. As per post mortem report, 68% burn injuries were found on the person of the decceased of which one abraded contusion over left temporal region, one abraded contusion over face right side orbital region and one traumatic swelling over head occipital region. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant on 24.09.2022. The applicant was arrested on 14.12.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as dying declaration, no role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that main role of committing marpeet has been attributed to Pinki (wife of the informant) and Geeta Devi ( mother-in-law of the informant). It is further submitted that except dying declaration, no evidence has been collected during investigation. It is further submitted that co-accused Ravi @ Bholu in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10054 of 2021 by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.06.2021. He has next argued that the applicant has no criminal his to his credit. If the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is not convicted in cognizable offence by any court. Per contra, learned AGA has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.