Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48714 of 2018 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. dated 31.07.2017 according to which Sohan Pal, father of first informant was beaten by applicant and another with sharp edged weapons and due to grievous injuries caused with sharp edged weapons, Sohan Pal was declared dead by medical officer and incident was seen by Ompal, Puja and Subhash; that the postmortem report of deceased states that deceased sustained 6 injuries out of which 4 are lacerated wound, 1 is abrasion and 1 is traumatic swelling and there is not even a single incised wound; that subsequently in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., first informant improved his version by stating that applicant and another beaten deceased with lathi-danda when he was intoxicated with liquor; that statements of Subhash, Puja and Ompal have been recorded after inordinate delay of twelve days who have stated that at the time of incident, deceased was intoxicated with liquor and when he was passing in front of the house of accused persons, they committed maar-peet with him with dandas and Ompal, brother of deceased who is blind has stated that deceased was crying on the spot by naming accused persons not to beat him any further; that the real fact is that deceased was a heavy drunkard and after taking liquor committed maar-peet with applicant causing incised wound on his left forearm but instead of lodging F.I.R. of applicant, he and his father were taken into custody; that medical of applicant was conducted in police custody on 31.07.2017 (copy at annexure-8); that the applicant had no motive to cause death of Sohan Pal; that the applicant is 20 years old student; 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 01.08.2017.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused 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 Arun Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No. 321 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Jani, District Meerut, 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 :- 21.12.2018 Nirmal