Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16290 of 2018 Applicant :- Chandan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vibhav Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Vibhav Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Shoaib Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Chandan with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 236 of 2017, under Sections 452, 307, 504, 506, 304 I.P.C. & 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Gagaha, District- Gorakhpur, during pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged by Smt. Afsana Begum i.e. daughter-in-law of the injured, namely, Allaudin, who was resident of Village-Dhanvada Bishanpura, Police Station- Bansgaon against four named accused persons alleging therein that the injured had purchased a land at Hata Badge crossing for constructing a house, for which, since two months he was residing at the parental house of the informant. One of the accused person, namely, Shadiq Ali, who was resident of parental village of the informant, had constructed a wall on the land of the Gaon Sabha with the help of other co-accused, namely, Chandan Yadav. However, on the complaint made by the injured, who was literate person, the said wall was demolished under order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 28th July, 2017 for which all the accused persons were inimical to the injured. On the same day i.e. 28th July, 2017 at 09:40 p.m. (night) when the informant was taking food, all the accused persons entered into the house and after using abusive language, they asked him as to why he got the wall demolished and on the instigation of other co-accused, the co-accused Chandan Yadav fired upon him by country-made pistol due to which he has sustained injuries and fell on the earth. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the application given before the concerned authority on 01.09.2017, the injured was admitted in the hospital on 29.07.2017 for his treatment and was discharged after 13 days. After his discharge, he again had fever for which he was admitted in the hospital on 21.08.2017 and in K.G.M.C. Lucknow on 31.08.2017, at about 12:00 hours, Allauddin died.
It is next argued that due to enmity regarding the demolition of the wall, the applicant had fired on father-in-law of the informant but he was admitted only for 13 days. There is nothing more on record to show that the father-in-law of the informant died due to the injuries caused to him by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed the order sheet showing the status of trial which goes to show that there are no chances of trial being concluded in the near future.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also pressed the issue of period of detention of the applicant i.e. 1st November, 2017, who has undergone more than one year and eight months of incarceration. He, therefore, submits that considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 no useful purpose would be served in keeping the applicant behind the bars.
The criminal history of applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 13 of the affidavit in support of bail application. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Priya