Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Maksood @ Babloo @ Zaid for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 1166 of 2015, under Section 302/120-B I.P.C, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh, during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the story, which has been cooked up by the prosecution is highly improbable and could not be believed in the background of the fact that the F.I.R. of the instant case was lodged on 12.12.2015, wherein it was stated that on 11.12.2015 when the deceased along with two eye witnesses namely Mogish Ahmad (Driver) and Avdhendra Pratap Singh was sitting in his vehicle at Railway crossing which was closed and some unknown persons fired gun shots and, thereafter, during the course of treatment deceased had died.
Highlighting the above factual matrix, it is overwhelmingly submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not involved in the above mentioned crime. The statement of the two eye witnesses namely Mogish Ahmad (Driver) and Avdhendra Pratap Singh was recorded by the investigating officer soon after the incident and it was stated by them that the person (s) who had fired on the deceased was unknown to them and they can identify him. However, since 2015, the investigation of the case was done on different angles and when the real assailant of the crime could not be found, the applicant has been made a 'scapegoat', only on the basis of his criminal history.
It is further submitted that after recording of the statement of driver Mogish Ahmad and Avdhendra Pratap Singh in 2015, after four years i.e. on 15.07.2019 their additional statements were recorded, wherein they have stated that on 10.04.2019 they had gone to Pratapgarh 'Kachehri' , where they have seen the instant applicant and have identified him as the same person who had fired on the deceased. It is vehemently submitted that it is highly doubtful and unbelievable as to how these witnesses could identify the assailant after a gap of 04 years without any regular 'Test Identification Parade' organized in the prison and, therefore, the statement of these witnesses have been procured by the investigating officer to culminate the investigation which was pending since 2015 and, therefore, the instant applicant has been made a 'scapegoat'.
It is further submitted that apart from the statement of these two witnesses, there is no evidence available against the applicant. The story cooked-up by the prosecution to the tune that the applicant had taken the money to murder one Hari Pratap Singh and as the face of Shri Hari Pratap Singh resembles to the face of Dr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, due to mistake Prabhat Kumar Singh was done to death by applicant, could not be believed.
It is also submitted that it is not made clear by the investigating officer as to why Dabbu Singh @ Pradeep Kumar Singh would engage the applicant and another co-accused persons to murder Hari Pratap Singh, Chairman as no evidence has been collected by the investigating officer pertaining to any dispute wherein they were parties and Hari Pratap Singh in his statement has also not stated about any enmity or dispute with Dabbu Singh. Therefore, the story cooked-up by the prosecution is highly improbable.
It is next submitted that the criminal history of 05 cases has been alleged against the applicant, however, in all these cases applicant has been released on bail by competent courts and copies of the bail orders with regard to all these cases have been placed on paper book.
It is also submitted that charge-sheet in the matter has already been submitted and the applicant is in jail in this matter since 19.08.2017 and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that applicant has committed a heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
It is further submitted that though the investigation of the case has been done on different angles but ultimately when the accused-applicant was seen by the eye witnesses of the crime at 'Pratapgarh Kachehri' they identified him and, thereafter, the investigating officer recorded their statement and the identification of the applicant by the Mogish Ahmad and Avdhendra Pratap Singh in the court premises is sufficient and there was no need for any 'Test Identification Parade'.
It is also submitted that applicant is having criminal history of 04 cases, many of them are connected with heinous offences and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find that the incident was on 11.12.2015 and First Information Report pertaining to the same was lodged on 12.12.2015 and immediately thereafter the statement of two eye witnesses namely Avdhendra Pratap Singh and Mogish Ahmad were recorded, who were allegedly accompanying the deceased in the 'Car' when the incident had happened. Thereafter, for next four days, the case was investigated by the investigating officer keeping in view the different angles including the one suggested by the wife of the deceased. Deceased was a doctor by profession and apparently was not having enmity with anyone. After more than 04 years of the incident, both above stated eye witnesses namely Mogish Ahmad and Avdhendra Pratap Singh have recorded their additional statements stating therein that they have identified one of the assailant (applicant) at 'Pratapgarh Civil Court' when he was being escorted for appearance in some court.
The investigating officer is of the view that one Dabbu Singh had given contact of murder of one Hari Pratap Singh to applicant and other co-accused person (since dead) and due to mistaken of identity, as the face of Hari Pratap Singh resembles with the face of deceased, deceased was done to death.
It has been overwhelmingly submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the two eye witnesses of the crime have claimed that they were sitting in the vehicle and had seen the assailants in the light of the vehicle and it is impossible for them to identify the assailants after more than four years without organizing the 'Test Identification Parade'. It is also highlighted that in the statement of Hari Pratap Singh he has not claimed that whether he was having any dispute or enmity with Dabbu Singh @ Pradeep Kumar Singh, who allegedly had given the contact of killing of Hari Pratap Singh. The criminal history of five cases of the applicant has been explained in Para No. 21 of the bail application and in Para No. 18 of the rejoinder affidavit dated 27.01.2020 and in all these cases the applicant has been released on bail and copy of the bail orders has also been filed. Applicant is in jail in this matter since 19.08.2017 and charge-sheet in the matter has already been submitted.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant for the purpose of releasing the applicant on bail. The bail application is, thus, allowed.
Let the applicant- Maksood @ Babloo @ Zaid involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Observations made in this order is for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall have no effect on the trial of this case.
Order Date :- 12.2.2021 Praveen