Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40099 of 2018 Applicant :- Amar Chandra Alias Sintu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Vikram Yadav,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated with a concocted prosecution story in F.I.R. lodged after inordinate delay; that as per averments made in F.I.R., "the deceased was introduced to accused persons by Ranveer, who provides loan and the accused persons managed to provide a loan of Rs.2 Lakhs to Ajay Kumar and a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs remained due and when the deceased Ajay Kumar asked for the balance money from Omveer, he called him on next day for receiving the balance amount so Ajay Kumar left to his Mausa's residence in the lane of Mukhiya Mandir and was fetched by accused persons on 26.6.2018 at 7:00 p.m. in presence of his cousin brother Rishabh and could not be traced thereafter rather his body was identified in the mortuary of S.N. Hospital on 28.6.2018 and it came to the knowledge of first informant that the body of deceased had been thrown into Bhooda Canal Sikohabad"; that there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant except the planted recovery of a piece of stone weighing being 4 Kgs., as weapon of crime from the joint pointing of applicant and Omveer, both the accused persons of which there is no independent witness and which is not admissible in evidence; that the confessional statement of applicant in police custody is not admissible in evidence; that the applicant was not at the place of incident at the relevant time as he was working outside with Lakhani footwears; that according to para 7 of the counter affidavit, the applicant is Sala of co-accused Omveer, who stood as guarantor for loan of Rs.2 Lakhs; that since the loan was obtained for Rs.2 Lakhs, there is no question of any balance or dues and the question for calling deceased for payment of balance amount does not arise; that alleged evidence of last seen developed by way of improvement, in the statements of Manorama Devi and Rishabh, the Mausi and cousin brother of the deceased and recorded after a period of more than one week from lodging of F.I.R., has no evidentiary value and is not admissible in evidence; that the applicant had no motive to cause death of deceased; that case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no incriminating evidence against applicant; that the applicant neither provided any loan to the deceased nor stood as guarantor nor any money is alleged to be due on him; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 1.7.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Amar Chandra Alias Sintu be released on bail in Case Crime No.510 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Rasoolpur, District Firozabad, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Kpy