Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
According to the prosecution version, on 20.04.2021 the first informant has lodged the missing report alleging that his son Baliram Chaurashia is missing since 19.04.2021. On 26.04.2021 his dead body was found in the pond of village and after that first information report was lodged against applicant and eight others and the first informant has alleged that he suspects that applicant and eight co-accused persons have committed murder of the deceased.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the first informant has made improvement and stated that the deceased was called by accused persons by making a call from co-accused Devendra to deceased. It has been submitted that first informant is not an eye-witness of the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that one Maqsood Ali has been shown as eye-witness of the alleged incident but he has merely stated that the deceased was being assaulted by co-accused persons and that applicant was standing there and he was co-operating them. It has been submitted that statement of alleged witness is highly improbable and it is not possible and he might have seen any such incident inside the house of applicant. The only other evidence shown against the applicant is that on 26.04.2021 co-accused Devendra was carrying plastic bag on his shoulder and he was taking it towards ponds and he was followed by the applicant. It has been submitted that no recovery of incriminating article has been shown from applicant and that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant. It was further submitted that applicant is a 72 years old person and languishing in jail since 28.04.2021 having no criminal history and that in case, applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the alleged eye-witness Maqsood Ali has stated that while deceased was being assaulted by co-accused persons, applicant was standing there and he was co-operating them. It was also stated that while the dead body of deceased was being carried in a plastic bag by co-accused Devendra, applicant was also following him.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Chandrika Prasad Chaurasia @ Chandrika involved in case crime no.142 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC P.S.Chiluatal, district Gorakhpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected.
E. 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 them 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 condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 pks