Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18088 of 2018 Applicant :- Deepanshu @ Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Mullick,Kandarp Srivastava,Kaustubh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Deepanshu @ Monu, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1044/2017, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Kankerkheda, District- Meerut during pendency of trial.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR the only allegation against the applicant and other co- accuseds is that the informant was informed by one witness, Kallu that in the evening on 30.11.2017, he saw the deceased- Piyush at his dairy and thereafter when he went to the dairy on the next day he did not found him in the dairy. Witness, Kallu, saw the applicant and other co-accuseds, namely, Sachin @ Kala, Ajay and Rohit having conversation with the deceased. The motive of the crime was stated to be the loan of Rs. 50,000/-, taken by the co-accused, Sachin, from the deceased and in the FIR it was alleged that there is apprehension that on account of the aforesaid dispute regarding loan, the deceased was abducted and kept somewhere. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 13.12.2017, after 14 days of the incident and on the basis of the recovery the applicant has been implicated for offence under Sections 302/201 IPC. Kallu has stated that in the evening of 29.11.2017, he was with the deceased- Piyush and when he was to leave he saw that all the four accuseds were sitting with the deceased and the deceased asked him to bring water for them. Thereafter, he left the place, where deceased resided. He has further stated that on the next morning, he saw blood on the road and then he informed the family members of deceased. On the basis of his information FIR was lodged by the informant. Two more witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer. Witness, Amit, stated that he saw deceased being beaten by three boys and he named them as, Rohit, Ajay and Monu. The second witness, Ompal, has not named anyone and only stated that he saw three persons taking gunny bag with them. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after 24 days of incident, recovery of a brick was shown from the applicant and thereafter, statement has been recorded that this brick was used for the purpose of causing injury to the deceased- Piyush, which resulted in his death. There is no report of any Forensic Expert on record to prove that the blood found on the brick was of the deceased. Whether it was of any animal or human being is not known. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of circumstantial evidence and he is in jail since 23.12.2017. He does not have any criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the informant has stated that from the statement of the witnesses, Amit, Kallu and Ompal, it is clear that there was direct evidence against the applicant. The witness, Ompal, has also stated that three boys were carrying the gunny bag and the gunny bag was having the dead-body of the deceased- Piyush. He has further submitted that it is not case of circumstantial evidence and a case of direct evidence and the applicant does not deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves 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 noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 S.K.