Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39116 of 2021 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Anil Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 134 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Lodha, District- Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that as per first information report allegation is that Anil Kumar the present applicant, Harendra, Pappu and Rohit Kumar of taking away the deceased from his house. It is argued that in the first information report there is a suspicion stated against the accused persons of kidnapping and murdering Sonu the son of the first informant who is the deceased in the present case. It is argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is further argued that dead body of the deceased Sonu was recovered on the pointing out of co-accused Pappu from a bush. It is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. It is argued that there is no eye witness of murder. It is further argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and against the applicant is of last seen which is a weak evidence. It is further argued that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted and as such there is no chance to the applicant threatening the witnesses or tempering with the evidence. He further argued that applicant has no criminal history which has been explained in Para- 35 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 30.07.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and has been stated to take away the deceased along with other co-accused persons after which the dead body of the deceased was recovered after two days, therefore, the bail application may be rejected.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. Link in the chain are conspicuously missing, applicant named in the FIR, but the first informant says of suspicion only. There is no eye witness to the murder. Dead body has been recovered on the pointing out of co- accused Pappu.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Anil Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
1. The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
2. The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
3 The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
4. The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
5. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
6. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
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.
The bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.12.2021 Vikram (Samit Gopal,J.)