Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57263 of 2019 Applicant :- Krishna Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atharva Dixit,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Manish Tiwary(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Nath,Krishna Dev Mishra
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwari learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the materials available on record.
Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 1072 of 2016, under Sections 302 and 506 IPC, Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad, applied for second bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits in following manner :-
(i) Accused-applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has committed no offence.
(ii) Although the applicant is named in the FIR but he has no concern with the present case. It is not a case of eye-witness. None has seen the applicant committing the present crime.
(iii) This is the case of circumstantial evidence. There is only evidence of last seen. Although, two persons are said to have been murdered in the present case but applicant has no role in the incident. Actually this is the case of accident, in which, two persons sustained serious injuries and died. Injuries found on the body of the deceased persons could be occurred in the accident.
(iv) Prosecution story is false, fake, concocted and not worthy to credence.
(v) According to prosecution case, deceased persons are said to have gone with the accused- applicant and co-accused. Later on, they were found dead near an hospital. Accused-applicant is said to be present on the spot. When witnesses reached there, accused-applicant fled away from the spot. Thus, none has seen the accused- applicant to commit the murder of deceased persons.
(vi) As per prosecution, wife of deceased Amit received telephonic information that dead body of Amit was taken to Anand Hospital by some person. When she reached hospital, applicant and co-accused Divyanshu were present and ran away by saying that he used to demand money from them, so they have done this condition.
(vii) If applicant had committed offence, he would not have stayed on the spot and it is a prosecution case that accused stayed there when witness arrived.
(viii) Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant or at his pointing out. Offending weapon has also not been recovered by the Police.
(ix) CCTV Camera installed near the place of occurrence is said to capture the entire incident but in trial, nothing has been disclosed in CCTV Camera that is immaterial evidence.
(x) PW-1 and PW-2 are the family members of the deceased. They are interested witness and they are the witnesses of last scene, who have seen the victim-deceased going with the accused- applicant from his own house.
(xi) From the prosecution itself there is no eye- witness of the incident. Entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. No chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. There is no possibilities of tampering the prosecution witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 have been recorded.
(xii) Applicant is in Jail since 26.11.2016 having no credible evidence.
(xiii) There is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. He will give full cooperation and present regularly in the trial court.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is named in the FIR. First bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court on merit and there is no new ground for bail. In response thereto, learned Senior Counsel for applicant argued that after the rejection of first bail application, prosecution examined two witnesses of fact, there remained no material evidence to be produced. Detention of applicant in Jail is also considerable in second bail. CCTV Camera is also not supporting the prosecution.
Having heard learned counsel for parties at length, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and manner in which occurrence took place, detention of applicant in jail and without expressing any opinion on merit of case, applicant deserves bail.
Accordingly, application is allowed.
Let applicant-Krishna Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
2. The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.
3. During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.
In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
However, trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of two years.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Akram