Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27259 of 2015 Applicant :- Cons. Rajdev Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lav Srivastava,Nand Kishor Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja,V.P. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,U.K Saxena
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Lav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anshu Singh Sengar holding brief for Shri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for informant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed the present offence. He is not named in the F.I.R.. Dead body of deceased was found hanging with a Mahua tree. In the post mortem report the doctor concerned reported injury no.7 as post mortem injury. Again report was prepared on the basis of video cassette and a different opinion was given by the doctor about injuries said to have been found on the body of deceased. Initially the Investigating Officer after investigation submitted final report. Protest petition was filed. Concerned Magistrate rejecting the final report directed for further investigation. It is next contended that again after investigation final report was submitted in the matter. Protest petition was filed and final report was accepted. Order passed on the final report was challenged, which was set aside and matter was investigated again. Thereafter, name of the present applicant and one co-accused came into light in the matter. It is next contended that there is no direct evidence to connect the applicant with the present offence. Name of applicant surfaced in the matter only on the basis of statement of co- accused Mahendra Singh, who died during trial. Cause of death of deceased is not the result of assault caused by applicant. Deceased committed suicide for the reasons best known to him. Referring to entire evidence annexed with the application, supplementary affidavit and counter affidavit it is submitted that applicant is in jail since 25.4.2015. No substantive progress has been made in trial. It is also submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, neither he will tamper the evidence nor will extend threat to witnesses. He will cooperate in trial.
On the other hand, learned counsel for informant and the learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that though applicant is not named in the F.I.R. yet his name came into light during investigation. Present applicant alongwith other police personnel lifted the deceased from his house and thereafter his dead body was found hanging with a Mahua tree. There is sufficient evidence on record to connect the applicant with the present matter. In case he is released on bail he will tamper the evidence and will also extend threat to witnesses.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Cons. Rajdev Saroj involved in Case Crime No. 540 of 2010, under Sections 342, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Rajpura, District - Chitrakoot be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. 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 him 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 conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 safi