High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83171 Reserved on 12.5.2025 Delivered on 19.5.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14637 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijit @ Ghasi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sachin Malik Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sachin Malik, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vijit @ Ghasi, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Rohta, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial. The prosecution case in short is that on 12.4.2023 one, Akshay Saharan, gave information at the police station that one dead body without head is lying behind his tubewell. The inquest proceedings and post mortem of the dead body of the deceased were conducted as unknown person on 28.4.2023. Sub Inspector, Anil Kumar, lodged an FIR against unknown accused regarding the recovery of dead body on the basis of information given on 12.4.2023 by Akshay Saharan. During the course investigation, one, Sudeep Singh, moved an application before the Police Station Rohta, District Meerut, stating that his cousin, Alok, was living in his house and on 01.4.2023, he went somewhere, but he did not returned. Now he has came to know about recovery of one dead body and then started search of his brother. His brother-in-law, Yogendra, informed that on 11.4.2023, Alok and applicant were present at the shop of country-made liquor at village, Meerpur. The applicant was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded by the police. Recovery of one spade was also made on the pointing out of the applicant. Recovery of head of the deceased, Alok, was recovered on 14.6.2023 and its inquest and post mortem were conducted on 14.6.2023 and 15.6.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication of the applicant. D.N.A. of the dead body earlier recovered was not matched with the D.N.A. of head recovered later. There is no motive assigned to the applicant for committing the alleged offence. The applicant has criminal history of five cases explained in paragraph no.26 of the bail application. He has further submitted that trial has commenced and PW-1, Akshay Saharan and PW-2, Anil Kumar, have got their statements recorded. The applicant is in jail since 8.6.2023. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that applicant has criminal history of three cases apart from the present case and five cases have wrongly been mentioned earlier. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. They have submitted that incriminating recovery of a bag with head of the deceased, pieces of stones, spade and motorcycle used for dragging the dead body of the deceased have been recovered, which are sufficient to implicate the applicant and allegation against him stands proved. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that applicant was not named in the FIR. After the deceased went missing from the house of Sudeep Singh on 1.4.2023, he never lodged even a missing report and not to say of lodging FIR. It is stated by Sudeep Singh that deceased, Alok, was his cousin and was living in his house after his mother's death. Only after few weeks of recovery of dead body of the deceased, he moved an application. The head of the dead person has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant, but there is no evidence that the dead body earlier recovered was of the same person, whose head was recovered later allegedly on the pointing out of the applicant. The recovery was not made in accordance with law. It is from open place without any public witness. Trial has begun and it will take time to conclude. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) 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 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. is issued and the applicants 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (v) 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 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. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Ruchi Agrahari Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad