Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24584 of 2018 Applicant :- Anand Tripathi Alias Anand Karan Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Deenanath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
The Court has been informed that the notice upon the complainant has been served through the C.J.M. and Advocate concerned. Despite notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.
Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
As per the complaint case filed by the wife of the deceased, after 37 days of the incident, it is alleged that her husband who was working as a driver, was subjected to gun shot injury, resultantly, he succumbed his injuries; the incident is alleged to have been witnessed by one Sonu Jadaun; the motive attached in the complaint is that the deceased was murdered so as to implicate the persons with whom the applicant and his family members were having long standing dispute.
It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that no recovery has been made from the applicant; applicant is a civil servant and on the date of incident he was on duty in the security of Hon'ble the Governor. It is further submitted that the date of incident is 19.04.2012 at about 5.45 a.m.; the deceased alongwith applicant's sister Smt. Saroj Kumari Shukla and her mother in-law (Smt. Premkanti Shukla) was going in a car; four nominated persons opened indiscriminate fire; a prompt F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Premkanti Shukla (sister of the applicant) after one hour at 6.45 a.m.; in the incident, the mother-in-law of the informant (Smt. Saroj Kumari Shukla) sustained gun shot injury on her right arm; she was admitted in hospital by the complainant (Smt. Premkanti Shukla) at 6.24 a.m., thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged; the nominated accused are facing trial and their bail application has been rejected by this Court; assault weapon was discovered on the pointing out of the accused persons. The injury caused to Smt. Saroj Kumari Shukla in the shootout has not been explained by the complainant.
In this backdrop, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint has been set by the nominated persons of the earlier prosecution case lodged by the sister of the applicant to raise a defence and cross the version; apart from the eye witness account which is doubtful and after thought there is no other evidence against the applicant. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail since 05.05.2018, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant, Anand Tripathi alias Anand Karan Tripathi, involved in Complaint Case No. 11326 of 2012 (Smt. Pappi Devi Versus Smt. Saroj Kumari and others), under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
Order Date :- 27.8.2018 K.K. Maurya