Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20305 of 2018 Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Keshav in Case Crime No.528 of 2017, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Narahat, District-Lalitpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that an information was given by the first informant on 5.9.2017 at the Police Station Narahat, District Lalitpur that his son Neeraj committed suicide. The said information was noted in General Diary at about 4.15 p.m. Based on said information inquest was conducted on 5.9.2017 at about 5.45 p.m. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was started on 6.9.2017 at 1.10 p.m. and concluded at 2 p.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day with the bald allegation that the applicant and two other accused are involved in the murder of his son. During investigation, the first informant stated that on the date of the incident the applicant and his associates chased his son and had also come to his house and extended threats to him. The case was registered under Section 302 I.P.C., however, as no evidence could be collected that the applicant and his associates had murdered his son, the case was converted under Section 306 I.P.C. It is also argued that the witnesses in their statement had stated that since the sister of applicant had some relations with the deceased, therefore the applicant being her brother is alleged to have committed the offence. It is further contended that apart from aforesaid reason, no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner(s) in the commission of alleged offence. It is further contended that since there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, therefore, the applicant who does not have any criminal antecedents deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 10.9.2017. It is lastly contended that similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.5.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18957 of 2018, photocopy of which has been produced before this Court today and is taken on record.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but they could not show any evidence collected during investigation that there was any direct or circumstantial evidence or that any instigation or abetment was made by any of the accused.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant-Deepak be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Shalini