Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25240 of 2019 Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed present offence. No motive has been assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R. to commit such offence. Referring to the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the postmortem report, it is further argued that informant is not an eyewitness account. Incident took place in other manner and caused by another person. First information report was lodged by the informant on the basis of false facts. Deceased himself was habitual offender. He was involved in several criminal cases and was released from jail few days before the incident. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer and the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation and further argued that incident is said to have taken place on the second floor where the shop in question was situated. As per statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant, he was present on the road side. Thus, it appears improbable and unbelievable that a person standing on the road side will be able to see the incident which takes place on the second floor of the building inside the shop. Thus, referring to this fact, it is argued that presence of the informant at the place of occurrence is doubtful. No one has witnessed the incident. Applicant has been implicated in this case due to the grounds shown in the affidavit. Deceased was done to death by some unknown miscreants. It is further contended that all the criminal cases shown against the applicant as criminal history have been properly explained in the affidavit accompanying the bail application. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Hence, on the ground of detention i.e. 6.11.2017, prayer for bail has been made.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that it is a broad day light incident. Informant is the eyewitness account. Incident took place inside the shop situated on the second floor of the market. Persons standing on the road, as is clear from the site plan, could easily see the incident occurred in the shop in question. Specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant. Medical evidence full supports the oral version. Several criminal cases of serious offences are pending against the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Ankit involved in Case Crime No.94 of 2016 under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Doghat, District Baghpat be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 25.6.2019
ss