Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34844 of 2018 Applicant :- Lokesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Sri M.A. Abbasi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant claims parity with co-accused Raj Kumar, who has already been enlarged on bail; as per the prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons by Chowkidar of the village alleging that they had fired gunshots at the deceased, who had received firearm injuries and died instantaneously; postmortem report shows six antemortem lacerated wounds; name of the applicant as an accused surfaced for the first time on 28.10.2017, 13 days after the incident, in the statements of witnesses Tota Ram (real devar of the deceased) and Hari Kishan (cousin brother-in-law of the deceased) who had stated that applicant, Muneesh, Jitendra and Babu Ram had come on motorcycle with two unknown persons and while Jitendra had fired the first shot at Ganga Devi whereafter she fell down on which applicant and co-accused Raj Kumar had also fired at her. He next submitted that Tota Ram was the witness of the inquest and in case, the identity of the assailants was known to Tota Ram and Hari Kishan who are close relatives of the deceased, they in the normal course of human conduct would have disclosed the name of the accused to the police at the earliest and not waited for 13 days. The very fact that they kept quiet for 13 days is in itself indicative of the fact that the identity of the culprits was not known to them and it was after due deliberation and consultation and as a measure of vendetta against the applicant/appellant for the F.I.R. being lodged by the accused's side against the informant's side u/s 306 I.P.C. He further submitted that recovery of 315 bore pistol from the possession of the applicant was made after 30 days of the incident, has apparently been fabricated by the police. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 15.11.2017, is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant-Lokesh involved in Case Crime No. 472 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Aanvla, District Bareilly be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties (one should be of his family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.9.2018 S.Prakash