Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42119 of 2018 Applicant :- Himanshu Aazad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav,Mandvi Tripathi,Santosh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Rana,Nazrul Islam Jafri
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that as per averments made in FIR lodged on 10.06.2018 by father of the deceased, his younger son Prasant Sisodia was fetched by applicant at 05:00 pm on 08.06.2018 by his splendour motorcycle, and when till late in night, he did not return, the wife of first informant called at the mobile number of applicant at about 09:58 pm, and he ascertained her talks with Prasant who stated that he will come back after some time, but he did not return the home; that it is also stated in FIR that on 09.06.2018, when the first informant went to house of applicant, he seen marks of injuries on his face as well as bandages who and told him that he left Prasant near Hapur Gate Modi Nagar, and when he reached in search of his son at Modi Nagar, found his dead body in front of the Jindal Confessionary Hapur Modi Nagar, over which inquest proceedings were being conducted; that that real facts is that applicant and Prasant were friends, and on the faithful night, both of them enjoyed burger and liquor, whereafter they met with an accident in which, applicant sustained injuries and was brought to Madhu Nurshing Home by someone where treatment was provided to him; that the applicant does not know as to what injuries were sustained by Prasant in above incident, and it appears that in the same accident, he would have sustained fatal injuries; that additional statement of first informant recorded after ten days on 21.06.2018 is absolutely false and concocted and it is absolutely wrong to say that applicant owed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- or any other amount to the deceased or caused death of Prasant by hitting him with the piece of brick; that the confessional statement of applicant in police custody is not admissible in evidence;
that the recovery of piece of brick at the pointing of applicant has been falsely planted, of which, there is no independent witness, and the same is not binding in applicant; that it is wrong to say that the applicant caused fatal injuries to the deceased, rather he appears to have died due injuries sustained in a road accident; 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 11.06.2018.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant Sri N.I. Jafri vehemently opposed the prayer of bail, and contended that it is a case where applicant had fetched the deceased, and has caused his murder; that the alleged injuries of applicant appears to have been sustained due to slip of his motorcycle, and the contention that he or Prasant met with in a road accident is absolutely wrong and incorrect.
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 Himanshu Aazad be released on bail in Case Crime No. 468 of 2018 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Modi Nagar District Ghaziabad 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 :- 29.11.2018 M. ARIF