Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8477 of 2021 Applicant :- Jeetu Tehkedar @ Arendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Habaldar Singh Katheria
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, who have appeared through video conferencing and perused the record. Despite link sent to Sri Habaldar Singh Katheria, learned counsel for informant has not appeared to participate in the proceeding of present matter through video conferencing.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.594 of 2020, under Sections 306, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Shikohabad, District-Firozabad.
As per FIR version, six persons including present applicant have been named as accused for committing homicidal death of Ansul (brother of informant), who was plying his personal vehicle bearing registration number UP 75-M/9599 under contract with Cold Storage namely, Sheetal India Private Ltd. On the date of incident i.e. 30.09.2020 at about 9.00 A.M., Ansul was called upon in the Office and was beaten up by accused persons to death for the allegation of theft. Subsequently, his body was hanged on a tree within the campus of Cold Storage.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that accused nos.1 to 5 namely, Ashfaq alias Bablu, Aizaz, Satendra Jain, Shekhu and Imran are co- partners of the Firm (Cold Storage) and the present applicant Jeetu is an operator (Thekedar) of the Cold Storage, who has falsely been implicated in the present matter for some ulterior motive. In the charge sheet dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure-5) only present applicant i.e. Jeetu has been arraigned as an accused under Section 306/120-B IPC. It is further submitted that from perusal of the FIR and case diary which has been taken into account by the I.O., no case is made out against the present applicant for abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy. In his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has stressed upon the statements of some of the witnesses, who are the employees of Cold Storage and have stated in their respective statements that Jeetu (present applicant), Ansul (deceased), Tara and Iqbal were called upon by the owners of the Cold Storage for enquiry with respect to theft of money amounting to Rs.4.5 lakhs. Though as per their statements, Jeetu (present applicant) was also part of enquiry, while query put to Anshul with respect to theft of money, his culpability cannot be inferred in the commission of alleged crime. All the witnesses have specifically stated that Anshul and other persons have been questioned qua theft of money. Even at the time of enquiry as per statement of Sakir s/o Mohd. Sabir and Manmohan Singh s/o Chob Singh, family members of Anshul (deceased) were also present at the time of enquiry and thereafter they went away. In the light of aforesaid statements, learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant himself was a suspect in the eyes of the owners of the Cold Storage and he has also been interrogated by them with respect to the missing money from the office, and therefore, he cannot be made an accused in the present matter for abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy. It is further submitted that as per statements of witnesses, after private enquiry as conducted by the owners of Cold Storage, they went away from the place and all the persons including family members of deceased and present applicant had left the premises of the Cold Storage except Ansul (deceased) who stayed there at night and in the next morning, his dead body was found hanging on a Neem tree. Learned counsel for the applicant has drew the attention of this Court towards the Post Mortem Report (Annexure-2 to this application) and submitted that injuries shown in the Post Mortem Report are not in consonance with the averment made in the FIR. As per FIR, deceased was badly beaten up to death by the named accused persons and after death his dead body was hanged on a tree, pretending it as a suicidal case, whereas in the Post Mortem Report (Annexure-2) only ligature mark around the neck has been shown. That apart, there is no sign of injury on the external part or internal part of the body. Cause of death has been shown to be asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. Injuries as shown in the Post Mortem Report are reproduced below :-
"A.M.I. - Ligature mark around the neck size 24 x 01 cm, with gap of 06 cm on left side neck, ligature mark 04 cm below from left ear, 07 cm below from right ear, 05 cm below from chin obliquely placed, ligature mark in hand and perchment like and brownish in colour, On dissection of ligature mark there is white glistening subcutaneous tissue under the ligature mark. There is bruising with ecchymosis around the edges of ligature mark. Neck vessels are engorged and full, there is bluish discoration of lips, head and nails."
It is further submitted that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant relating to the commission of crime as mentioned in the FIR. No unimpeachable evidence has been collected by the I.O. showing complicity of the present applicant in commission of the alleged crime. No eye witness or public witness has been produced to this account showing involvement of present applicant in abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy. In para 13 of the affidavit filed in support of this bail application, it is stated that there is no criminal history of present applicant. Applicant is languishing in jail since 06.10.2020. There are no chances of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with prosecution evidence. He undertakes to appear personally on each and every date and also not seek any unnecessary adjournment during trial. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but he has submitted that innocence of applicant cannot be adjudicated at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence and there is likelihood of his involvement in other case. In case, he is released on bail, he may misuse the liberty of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and considering the complicity of accused, totality of facts and circumstances of the case as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018)3 SCC 22, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case at this stage, I find it an appropriate case to release applicant on bail.
The application is allowed. Let applicant, Jeetu Tehkedar @ Arendra involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant shall abide the orders of Court, shall attend the Court on each and every date and shall not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
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.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties shall be verified by Court concerned, and in case of breach of any of above conditions by applicant, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 13.5.2021 Manish Himwan