Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Dinesh Gautam @ Bhaiya Neta for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 0250 of 2020, under Sections 395, 397 and 412 I.P.C, Police Station Manikpur, District Pratapgarh, during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. lodged by the informant with regard to the commission of crime and it was one day after the incident the applicant along with other co-accused persons is alleged to have been arrested and allegedly confessed in the custody of police and from the possession of the applicant Rs. 4,600/- and one nose pin along with the country made pistol was allegedly recovered.
It is overwhelmingly submitted that the story as has been cooked up by the police could not be believed in the background of the fact that no identification of accused persons including the applicant or of the material allegedly recovered from his possession was made by the investigating agency, as it has been mentioned in the recovery-memo itself that after the arrest of the applicant and other co-accused persons the informant and his relatives, themselves, arrived at the seen of the recovery and identified the accused persons as well as the material allegedly recovered from them.
It is further submitted that no specific identification mark has been described in the First Information Report with regard to the jewellery looted in the alleged incident and, therefore, the identification made by the informant at the time of the arrest of the applicant and other accused persons could not be believed.
It is next submitted that co-accused of the crime, namely Mohd. Mustafa having identical role in the crime as of the applicant, has been released on bail by the subordinate court, vide order dated 21.12.2020 passed in Bail Application No. 2224 of 2020, a copy of which has been placed as Annexure-3 to this bail application.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail in this matter since 02.11.2020 without any criminal antecedents and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that he has committed heinous offence, but could not dispute the fact that the other co-accused person, namely Mohd. Mustafa having identical role in the alleged incident, has been released on bail by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Pratapgarh, vide order dated 21.12.2020 passed in Bail Application No. 2224 of 2020.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant I find substance only for the purpose of releasing the applicant on bail. The bail application is, thus, allowed.
Let the applicant-Dinesh Gautam @ Bhaiya Neta involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) 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 :- 21.1.2021/Praveen