Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42613 of 2018 Applicant :- Govind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Imran Mabood Khan
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Imran Mabood Khan, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in double murder case, of which, FIR has been lodged after inordinate delay; that as per averments made in FIR on 01.05.2018 at about 06:30 pm, his nephew Parvat Singh was going from Rampur to village Deenpur by his waggon-R car along with Harpal and Umrao, and he was following them on motorcycle with his nephew and as the vehicle of Parvat reached in front of Pyarelal School, the applicant and co-accused persons were hiding there since before, and had obstructed the rasta by tractor, and as soon as Parvat Singh stopped his vehicle, all the accused persons gathered around his vehicle, upon which, Parvat Singh and Umrao fled towards West to save their lives while Harpal fled towards North, and all the accused persons with fire arms started indiscriminate firing due to which, Umrao fell down near the vehicle, and Parvat Singh fled towards fields, and was caught by Veer Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Trimal; upon which Suresh, Surendra, Evran and Kailash fired at him and caused his death; that it was also stated in FIR that they also amputated private part of Parvat and caused is brutal murder; that in the FIR, though, the applicant has been named, but he has not been assigned any specific role of either catching hold of deceased Parvat or Umrao, or in firing at any of them or of amputation of private part of Parvat; that the postmortem report of Parvat Singh is in contradiction to the averments made in FIR regarding amputation of private part of Parvat Singh as it shows only burn injuries on his private part and not amputation, apart from a lacerated wound two entry gun shot wound and two exit gun shot wound; that two burn injuries as well as one lacerated wound of deceased Parvat Singh have not been explained by the prosecution; that the postmortem report of Umrao shows that he sustained two fire arms injuries; that the prosecution witnesses in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not assigned any specific role to the applicant in causing fatal injury to deceased; that in the postmortem report, cause of death of Parvat Singh has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem gun shot injury; that deceased Parvat Singh was a political leader and may have murdered by unknown persons due to political rivalry; that applicant had no motive to cause death of deceased; that the case of applicant is distinguishable from co-accused persons who have been assigned with active role; that nothing has been recovered from the applicant; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 10.06.2018.
Learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that Investigating Officer did not do fair investigation due to which, upon application, the investigation was handed over to another I.O., and again under influence of accused, the I.O. changed; that applicant and co-accused persons are influential type of persons; that if the applicant is released on bail, he will tamper with prosecution witnesses.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Govind be released on bail in Case Crime No. 160 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 342, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Shahzadnagar District Rampur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 M. ARIF