Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31962 of 2018 Applicant :- Babloo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in the Court today is kept on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Satyendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2018, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Pachokhara, District- Firozabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. He further submitted that co-accused Sunny, Nirdosh and Sukhvir have already been enlarged on bail. He next submitted that general role of indiscriminate firing has been assigned to all the accused. Although in the F.I.R., it is alleged that five persons had fired at the deceased but the postmortem report of the deceased indicates only two firearm wounds of entry with corresponding exit wounds. In view of the above, the possibility of the prosecution case being exaggerated and false implication of several innocent persons cannot be ruled out. He lastly submitted that the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 05.03.2018, is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Per contra Sri Satyendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the crime weapon used in committing the murder of the deceased was recovered from the possession of the applicant after two months of the occurrence and on being quizzed by the police, he confessed that it was the same weapon by which he had shot the deceased. Moreover, the applicant had motive to commit the offence and in view of the above, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged recovery of the crime weapon from the possession of the applicant after two months of the occurrence, has apparently been fabricated by the police as no independent witness has been enjoined in the recovery.
Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicant, Babloo be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 19 of 2018, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Pachokhara, District- Firozabad, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the informant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. 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 :- 24.8.2018 KS