Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50520 of 2019 Applicant :- Gaurav Singh @ Arman Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Singh,Devashish Mitra
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Gaurav Singh @ Arman Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 29 of 2019, under Sections -307 I.P.C., Police Station - Bhuta, District - Bareilly, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of attempt to murder, punishable with imprisonment of ten years;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 03.02.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 04.09.2019;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history, it has been submitted, that though certain cases are registered against the applicant, he has already been enlarged on bail in those cases, and that he has never been found to have violated the terms of the bail thus granted;
(v) though investigation is stated to be pending against the applicant yet, at present, no justifiable cause has been shown to continue the detention of the applicant for an indefinite period;
(vi) on prima facie basis only, it has been submitted that the parties were known from before as is clear from the subsequent statement of the injured recorded during investigation. However, the FIR, had been lodged against three unknown persons, and there was complete lack of allegation of extortion at that stage. Almost a year thereafter, the name of the applicant was introduced only for other disputes that were pending between the parties, for which reason, the informant sought to implicate the present applicant. Then, it has also been pointed out, that even in the subsequent statement, the informant stated that he had recognized one Pintu Patel, at the time of attempt on his life but he could not recognize the other two persons whom he had recognized only at the instance of the statement made by Raj Patel. Thus, it has been submitted that there is more than reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and the applicant has been falsely implicated.
4. The above submission has been met by learned Senior Counsel for the informant who has submitted that besides the criminal history, the applicant tried to threaten the informant inside the court premises on 22.11.2019, when both parties were present for different reasons. While the applicant had been brought in police custody, he threatened the applicant with dire consequences for having named him in the present case. A copy of the NCR dated 22.11.2019 recorded by the police has also been placed on record which has been marked as 'X' and retained on record.
5. While, the NCR has been registered at the instance of the informant, in paragraph no.10 of the counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that upon such occurrence, the police had been contacted on telephone who rushed to the spot and thereafter registered the NCR. Yet no FIR has been registered till now.
6. Without entering into the merits, at present, the purpose of consideration of the bail application, it is seen, that the applicant was not named in the FIR, though the parties were known from before. Then in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant named Pintu Patel as the assailant whom he had identified, at the relevant time but, again he had himself stated that he had not identified the present applicant, at the relevant time, and that his identity came to be known only on the basis of information received by the informant from Raj Patel;
7. In any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State and or the informant that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.
8. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two (heavy) sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, 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.
9. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 25.11.2019 S.Chaurasia