Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40539 of 2018 Applicant :- Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma,Lavesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma and Lavesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 273 of 2018, under Sections 302 IPC , P.S. Achhnera, District Agar.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that a person went missing on 14.3.2018 and the FIR was lodged on 15.3.2018 against unknown persons; subsequently it appears that the victim died on 17.3.2018 in the hospital; during the time when the victim was admitted to the hospital in ICU ward, the concerned police inspector had gone to visit and record the statement of the victim and it is contended that the victim had disclosed the name of the applicant to the police inspector on the basis of which the applicant has been implicated in the present case. It is contended that this version cannot be believed in view of the testimony of the doctor, copy of which has been annexed at page no. 36 of the affidavit which shows that victim was unconscious and was admitted to ICU ward; thereafter two of the close relatives, namely, Dilshad and Ali Sher, who happens to be the cousin brother of the deceased have given the evidence of last seen having seen the . In this regard, it has been contended that both are the cousin brother of the deceased and in case they had seen then this fact they would have disclosed at the first instance and they would not have kept mum for a long perid of of time. The accused applicant is in jail since 21.3.2018 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A. and by the learned counsel for the complainant with the contention that there is recovery, however, the same is false and fabricated.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Chhotu involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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 complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Kuldeep