Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17319 of 2021 Applicant :- Mahesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Paritosh Sukla,Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Balbir Yadav,Vipin Kumar
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Sri Upendra Upadhaya, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of first informant, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report was lodged against four named persons including the applicant and four unknown persons attributing general role that they all, in furtherance of common object, have fired at the son and daughter of deceased and resultantly the son of informant died, whereas daughter of informant has sustained injuries. Learned counsel submitted that no specific role was assigned to applicant and that only general role of firing was attributed to all the accused persons. During investigation, in her supplementary statement, the injured witness Km. Soni as well as other eye-witnesses have stated that on the exhortation of applicant Mahesh Sharma and co-accused Ranjeet, the co-accused Dharmendra and Shivkant @ Bantu have made firing at deceased and injured. Similar statements have been made by other eye-witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that from these statements, it is clear that only the role of exhortation has been attributed to applicant. Further, similarly placed co-accused Ranjeet Yadav has already been granted bail by the Court of Sessions Judge, Etah vide order dated 02.03.2021. It has been further submitted that applicant is a 65 years old person and now he is languishing in jail since 01.10.2020, having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the first informant that applicant is named in first information report. Referring to version of first information report and statements of witnesses, it was submitted that the facts of the case show that alleged incident was committed in furtherance of common object of all the accused person including the applicant. It was also submitted that injured Km. Soni has sustained severe injuries. However, it could not be disputed that similarly placed co-accused Ranjeet Yadav has already been granted bail.
Perusal of record shows that as per statements of eye-witnesses, the role of firing has been attributed to co-accused Dharmendra and Shivkant @ Bantu and that applicant was attributed only the role of exhortation and thus, the case of applicant is distinguished from said co-accused person, namely, Dharmendra and Shivkant @ Bantu.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Mahesh Sharma involved in Case Crime No. 339 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 307, 302, 34 of IPC, P.S. Aliganj, District Etah, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 7.10.2021 A. Tripathi