By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.176/2016, under Sections - 364/302 I.P.C., Police Station - Antu, District - Pratapgarh, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
This is the 3rd bail application preferred by the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 06.02.2017 in Bail No.872 of 2017 and the second bail application was rejected on merits by this Court vide its order dated 3.5.2018 in Bail No.4672 of 2017.
According to the version in the F.I.R. is that the son of the informant was working as tractor driver on the bricklin and on 9.5.2016 at 4.30 PM the accused / applicant came on a bolero vehicle and forcibly dragged his son inside the vehicle and as he reached on Pakki road, he opened fire on the son of the informant on his stomach and thrown him on the road and ran away.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the version in the F.I.R. and the statement of the wife of the deceased is totally different. As per statement of the wife of the deceased, on 9.5.2016 the applicant alongwith three persons reached on the bricklin and started firing with tamancha on her husband and thereafter they ran away on Bolero. It is further submitted that the information was given to her by the owner of the bricklin. It is further submitted that there are contradictions in the version in the F.I.R. and the Statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as the version in the F.I.R. is that the applicant alone took the son of the informant and killed him somewhere else, whereas the wife of the deceased has given statement that the bricklin owner had informed her regarding killing of her husband and the place of the occurrence was the bricklin and two more persons were also present alongwith the applicant at the time of incident. It is further submitted that the second bail application was rejected by this Court placing reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased. It is further submitted that as per Purcha No.III dated 16.05.2016 the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the deceased from Bed No.14 of the S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj and the copy of the same has been enclosed as Annexure 13 to the affidavit filed alongwith the bail application. It is further submitted that an R.T.I. has been filed and the Public Information Officer, office of Medical Superintendent, S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj provided information vide its letter dated 30.09.2019 that the deceased was admitted in the emergency surgical ward on Bed No.32 since 09.05.2016 to 17.05.2016. It is further submitted that if the deceased was admitted on Bed No.32 of the Hospital then how the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the person who was on Bed No.14 in the hospital. It is further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the chargesheet has already been filed in this case and there is no apprehension that the applicant will tamper the evidence and witnesses of the case. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case and is having no criminal history. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.05.2016.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that from the F.I.R. and the statement of the informant and the dying declaration, the offence is made out against the applicant, but unable to dispute either during the course of argument or in the counter affidavit regarding annexure 13 and 14 filed alongwith the bail application showing therein that the deceased was at Bed No.32, whereas dying declaration was recorded of the person, who was at Bed No.14 and also unable to dispute that there is no eye witness of the incident.
After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and examining the material available on record, keeping in view the nature of offence and totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let applicant (Gufran) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(i) The applicant shall however, co-operate and attend the proceedings at every stage without seeking unnecessary adjournments just to prolong the proceedings.
(ii) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(iii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(iv) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 S. Kumar