Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24087 of 2017 Applicant :- Anand Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Anand Prakash in connection with Case Crime No.383 of 2015 (S.T. No.259 of 2016), under Sections 147, 148, 149 302, 307, 452 IPC, Police Station Powayan, District Shahjahanpur.
Heard Sri Kamlesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Saqib Meezan, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The prosecution story in short is that on 29.04.2017 at about 1.00 AM at odd hours in the night, the complainant's brother Ram Ladaite and his wife Prabha Devi were sleeping in the verandah. All of a sudden the accused, that includes applicant, alighted at the premises armed with deadly weapons and a common intention to murder Ram Ladaite and Prabha Devi. It is stated that co-accused Avnish and Aditya, both armed with .315 bore country- made pistols, opened fire and the applicant, armed with a gun, stood guard at the door. It is alleged by the first informant that the applicant kept guard at the door, where the other accused did his brother and his wife to death by shooting them accompanied by assault with a sharp edged weapon called 'Banka', killing them at the spot. It is alleged that the informant, his wife and son Anuj raised alarm, upon which they opened fire at the three of them, who somehow managed to escape with their life, but the informant, his wife and son all of them clearly recognized the assailants in torch light.
The submission is that the applicant was not present at the time of occurrence and had no role to play even going by the prosecution story. The only role assigned to the applicant is of standing guard at the door which creates doubt about the prosecution story. It is further argued that the incident has taken place in the dark hours of the night, where there was no source of light. The Investigating Officer did not find any source of light at the time of spot inspection. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant, on the strength of a supplementary filed, that at the instance of one Smt. Kunti, who is wife of co-accused Om Prakash and mother of co- accused Aditya Kumar, investigation of the case was transferred to the C.B. C.I.D. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to Parcha no.28, in which the Investigating Officer from the C.B.
C.I.D. found that the main accused Aditya Kumar and Om Prakash were not present at the place of occurrence, and, so far as the applicant is concerned, no active role has been assigned to him. It is submitted that all these facts throw a cloud of doubt about the prosecution story and the applicant, who has no active role, is entitled to the indulgence of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that it is a case of double murder, where he has submitted that the applicant was keeping guard outside the door. He has also been nominated and identified accompanying the accused, who assaulted by fire arms and sharp edged weapon, doing couple to death. The ocular evidence is consistent throughout and the applicant is trying to create a misplaced doubt, which, in any view of the matter, cannot be considered at the stage of bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence including the fact that it is a case of double brutal murder of a husband and wife, where the applicant is nominated, may be with the role of keeping guard while the co- accused committed the deadly deed using fire arms and sharp edged weapons, the fact that they were duly identified by other inmates of the house, whose presence is logical at the place and time of occurrence, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
Anything said in this order will not affect the case of the parties on merits at the trial which the trial Court shall be free to judge on all issues of fact and law in accordance with evidence led at the trial.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected at this stage.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial expeditiously, if possible, within six months next from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Anoop/ S. Thakur