Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2517 of 2019 Applicant :- Dhan Raj @ Makad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
This case has been assigned by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 18.01.2019.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mrs. Ladlee Pandey, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person alleging that on 17.5.2018 Smt. Asha, wife of the complainant, was found dead in his house. Later on, Ravi was arrested by the Police personnel and in his confessional statement he disclosed the names of Pushpa, Banti, Dhanraj and Golu and one belcha and ring were also recovered from the possession of Ravi and one pair of payal was recovered from Dhanraj and one mobile phone was recovered from Golu in the house of co-accused Pushpa.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that co-accused Banti @Q Arjun has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.11.2013 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42470 of 2018 and the case of the applicants are identical to the case of co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail, hence the applicants are also entitled to bail on the ground of parity; applicants are languishing in jail since 6.8.2018 (more than five months) having no criminal history; the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no eye witness account; the name of the applicants was surfaced in the confessional statement of co- accused Ravi before the Police personnel and after 81 days of the incident the name of the applicants was discolsed; no identification parade of person or property was conducted; there is no independent witness and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicants and admitted that applicants have no criminal history and also admitted that the case of the present applicants is identical to the case of co-accused Banti @Q Arjun, who has been enlarged on bail Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicants Dhan Raj @ Makad and Golu involved in Case Crime No. 224 of 2018, under Section 302, 394, 449, 411, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Nawabad, District-Jhansi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
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 court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 OP