Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25928 of 2021 Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Mudgal @ B.P.
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ram Prakash Dwivedi
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Bhanu Pratap Mudgal @ B.P., in Case Crime No. 738 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District- Agra.
Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri K.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 01.01.2020; he is of five criminal antecedents and those are of minor offences, wherein, he is on bail and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail. This report was got lodged with delay, wherein, applicant and one other was named and four others were said to be under camouflaging; CCTV footage of spot proved that assailants were Sachin Kanja and Akash; subsequently, statement of informant and his uncle, who was said to be present on the spot, came of this fact that assailants were Sachin Kanja and Akash, whereas, other accused persons were present on the spot and one of them was doing Rekee; two of them, have been enlarged on bail by this Court; role, assigned to applicant in the first information report, is of giving firearm shot, whereas, autopsy examination report reveals three wounds of gunshot entry, but dimension is of this specification proving to be one weapon only; moreso, role of giving firearm shot is for Sachin Kanja and Akash; deceased was a property dealer, having many criminal antecedents of his own and rivalry with many others resulting this occurrence, but owing to enmity, this implication was made. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA as well as Sri Dilip Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant, has mentioned that this offence was instantly reported, and was a planned murder, in broad day light, in cantonment area and since the beginning, applicant was named in it; offences of antecedents were not of minor offences; CCTV footage is not satellite recording; rather visible area to the camera reported so with regard to assailants Sachin and Akash, but informant and his uncle, who happens to be brother and brother's son of the deceased and who were present on the spot, have instantly witnessed the occurrence and had narrated this assassination, wherein, role of giving firearm shot was assigned to those all members of unlawful assembly, comprising named accused persons and four others, but the applicant is named from the very beginning in the first information report; looking to the severity and gravity of offence, area of cantonment, daring situation of accused persons, likelihood of fleeing from course of justice and tampering with evidence in case released on bail, does not make a case for bail.
Having heard and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that report was got lodged against the applicant and one Vishnu Rawat by name and four others mentioning them to be under camouflaging, for giving assault over the deceased by firearm shot by each of them; CCTV footage, which is a part of case diary and conclusion of Investigating Officer gave role of firearm shot by Sachin and Akash, subsequently, statement of the informant and other witnesses of fact was also of the same tune that firearm shot was given by Sachin Kanja and Akash; role assigned to present applicant along with others was that they were involved in hatching conspiracy; it was with the contention that firearm shot was not by them for committing murder, but the specific shot was said to be by those two said accused persons; for applicant, there is accusation of involvement in other criminal antecedents in which the applicant is on bail.
Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, and the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, para-1 has held that "The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty.", a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Bhanu Pratap Mudgal @ B.P., involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
5. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
6. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by counsel of the party concerned.
7. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad, and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 Dhirendra/ Digitally signed by RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM Date: 2021.10.27 17:06:33 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad